DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7: line 3 recites “shied” instead of --shield--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Happ U.S. 2020/0392999 in view of Barberis U.S. 2015/0151574.
Re clm 1, Happ discloses a wheel hub unit (Fig. 4-5) for vehicles comprising: a radially outer ring (3), a radially inner ring (4), a plurality of rolling elements (6) interposed between the radially inner ring and the radially outer ring to make the radially inner ring and the radially outer ring relatively rotatable with respect to a bearing axis of rotation, and an axially symmetric seal assembly (8) including a shaped shield (9), the shield having an annular flanged portion (15, Fig. 2) mounted onto the cylindrical outer surface of the radially inner ring, the annular flanged portion of the shaped shield on the radially inner ring being freestanding and perpendicular to the bearing axis of rotation.
Happ does not disclose the shaped shield is formed by pressing a conical mounting portion of a precursor shield onto the cylindrical outer surface of the radially inner ring to conform the conical mounting portion of the precursor shield to the cylindrical outer surface of the radially inner ring.
Barberis teaches a shield (10, Fig. 1-3) comprising pressing a conical mounting portion (15) of a precursor shield onto the cylindrical outer surface ([0041]) of the radially inner ring to conform the conical mounting portion of the precursor shield to the cylindrical outer surface of the radially inner ring for the purpose of providing axial locking of the shield on the mounting surface ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Happ and provide the shaped shield is formed by pressing a conical mounting portion of a precursor shield onto the cylindrical outer surface of the radially inner ring to conform the conical mounting portion of the precursor shield to the cylindrical outer surface of the radially inner ring for the purpose of providing axial locking of the shield on the mounting surface.
Re clm 2, the improvement of Barberis further discloses an angle, a, between the mounting portion of the precursor shield and a precursor shield central axis of rotation is from 0.5° to 3° ([0036]).
Re clm 3, the limitation “provide an angle, b, between the mounting portion of the precursor shield and the annular flanged portion of the precursor shield is defined by the relation (90° - 0.6a) < b< (90° + 0.6a)” is an intermediate product, while the scope of the invention is a final product. The final product does not include these features. Thus, the features of the shield prior to assembly that do not affect the final product are given little or no patentable weight. See MPEP § 716.02(b)(III) which states
The patentability of an intermediate may be established by unexpected properties of an end product "when one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably ascribe to a claimed intermediate the ‘contributing cause’ for such an unexpectedly superior activity or property." In re Magerlein, 602 F.2d 366, 373, 202 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1979). "In order to establish that the claimed intermediate is a ‘contributing cause’ of the unexpectedly superior activity or property of an end product, an applicant must identify the cause of the unexpectedly superior activity or property (compared to the prior art) in the end product and establish a nexus for that cause between the intermediate and the end product." Id. at 479.
Assuming the intermediate geometry of angle b is required for the final product:
Happ in view of Barberis would inherently provide an angle, b, between the mounting portion of the precursor shield and the annular flanged portion of the precursor shield is defined by the relation (90° - 0.6a) < b< (90° + 0.6a), since this would be an inherent outcome of requiring the flange (15) of Happ to be perpendicular to 13 after mounting ([0061] and Fig. 4-5) while also requiring the mounting portion to be conical before mounting the shield as taught by Barberis.
Assuming Happ in view of Barberis does not inherently disclose the features of claim 3 and that such features provide a difference in the final product:
Happ in view of Barberis are silent as to the state of the flange before mounting and does not disclose the second angle is defined by the relation (90° - 0.6a) < b< (90° + 0.6a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Happ in view of Barberis and provide the second angle is defined by the relation (90° - 0.6a) < b< (90° + 0.6a), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
The angle between the flanged portion and the axis before mounting is a well-known result and obvious effect variable. In order to provide the desired seal geometry after mounting, it is clear that the geometry of the seal prior to mounting directly affects the after mounting geometry. Put another way, if the angle between the flange and the mounting portion (and thus also the axis) is too large or too small, then the resulting mounted geometry will provide a flange that is not perpendicular to the axis (either larger or smaller than 90°).
Re clm 4, Happ further discloses the shaped shield has a second portion (14) radially external to the mounting portion, the second portion making a third circumferentially constant angle c with respect to the annular flanged portion ([0061]).
Re clm 5, Happ further discloses the third angle c is defined by the relation: c = 90° + k wherein k is a parameter equal to 0% to 50% of the first angle a (90°; [0061]).
Re clm 6, Happ further discloses the mounting portion has an axially internal end edge(right end of 13, Fig. 2).
Re clm 11, Happ discloses a method comprising: providing a radially outer ring (3, Fig. 4-5), a radially inner ring (4) and a plurality of rolling elements (6) interposed between the radially inner ring and the radially outer ring to make the radially inner ring and the radially outer ring relatively rotatable with respect to a bearing axis of rotation (2), providing an axially symmetric precursor seal assembly including a shaped shield (9) having an annular flanged portion (15) and a mounting portion (13) integral with the annular flanged portion, pressing the shaped shield ([0069]) onto a cylindrical portion of the radially inner ring with an interference fit such that the mounting portion is caused to become cylindrical by engagement with the radially inner ring and the annular flanged portion is caused to become perpendicular to the bearing axis of rotation (Fig. 2 and 4-5; pressing 13 on to cylindrical surface of 4 will ensure 13 is also cylindrical), and forming a final seal assembly by pressing the mounting portion of the shaped shield of the precursor seal assembly onto a cylindrical portion of the radially inner ring with an interference fit such that the mounting portion is caused to become cylindrical by engagement with the radially inner ring and the annular flanged portion is caused to become perpendicular to the bearing axis of rotation while projecting in a freestanding manner from the mounting portion ([0062]; Fig. 4-5).
Happ does not disclose the mounting portion being conical and the mounting portion making a first circumferentially constant angle, a, relative to a shield axis of rotation.
Barberis teaches a precursor shield (10, Fig. 1-3) comprising the mounting portion (15) being conical and the mounting portion making a first circumferentially constant angle, a, relative to a shield axis of rotation ([0036] and [0041]) for the purpose of providing axial locking of the shield on the mounting surface ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Happ and provide the mounting portion being conical and the mounting portion making a first circumferentially constant angle, a, relative to a shield axis of rotation for the purpose of providing axial locking of the shield on the mounting surface.
Happ in view of Barberis would inherently provide the annular flanged portion making a second circumferentially constant angle b relative to the mounting portion. Some angle must exist between the annular flanged portion and the mounting portion while the prior to final seal assembly.
Re clm 12, the improvement of Barberis further discloses the first angle is from 0.5° to 3° ([0036]).
Re clm 13, Happ in view of Barberis would inherently provide the angle, b, is defined by the relation (90° - 0.6a) < b< (90° + 0.6a), since this would be an inherent outcome of requiring the flange (15) of Happ to be perpendicular to 13 after mounting ([0061] and Fig. 4-5) while also requiring the mounting portion to be conical before mounting the shield as taught by Barberis.
Assuming Happ in view of Barberis does not inherently disclose the features of claim 3:
Happ in view of Barberis are silent as to the state of the flange before mounting and does not disclose the second angle is defined by the relation (90° - 0.6a) < b< (90° + 0.6a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Happ in view of Barberis and provide the second angle is defined by the relation (90° - 0.6a) < b< (90° + 0.6a), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
The angle between the flanged portion and the axis before mounting is a well-known result and obvious effect variable. In order to provide the desired seal geometry after mounting, it is clear that the geometry of the seal prior to mounting directly affects the after mounting geometry. Put another way, if the angle between the flange and the mounting portion (and thus also the axis) is too large or too small, then the resulting mounted geometry will provide a flange that is not perpendicular to the axis (either larger or smaller than 90°).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Happ U.S. 2020/0392999 in view of Barberis U.S. 2015/0151574 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Duch U.S. 2020/0207147.
Happ in view of Barberis discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 7, Happ further discloses the shaped shield is made from sheet metal ([0029]).
Happ does not disclose a thickness of the mounting portion and the annular flanged portion is between 0.4 mm and 0.8 mm.
Duch discloses a sealing element (50, Fig. 2) of a wheel hub in which a thickness (55) of the mounting portion and the annular flanged portion is between 0.4 mm and 0.8 mm ([0021]) for the purpose of providing a stable and strong mounting.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Happ and provide a thickness of the mounting portion and the annular flanged portion is between 0.4 mm and 0.8 mm for the purpose of providing a stable and strong mounting.
Re clm 8, the improvement of Duch further discloses a diametral interference between the mounting portion and a mounting seat at the end edge is from 0.05 mm to 0.35 mm ([0021]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Happ U.S. 2020/0392999 in view of Barberis U.S. 2015/0151574 and Duch U.S. 2020/0207147 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Suzuki U.S. 2015/0069826.
Happ in view of Duch or Happ in view of Barberis and Duch discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 9, Happ does not disclose the mounting seat is made of steel and has a roughness Ra less than or equal to 0.8 µm.
Suzuki teaches the hub being formed of steel ([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the unknown material of the hub (and in turn the mounting seat) of Happ with that of steel, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Suzuki teaches a mounting seat (20, Fig. 2) of a sealing element made of steel ([0077]) and has a roughness Ra less than or equal to 0.8 µm ([0085] and [0113]) for the purpose of providing an improved sealing effect between the seal and the mounting seat since a rougher surface would provide more opportunity for leakage between the seal and the mounting seat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Happ and provide the mounting seat has a roughness Ra less than or equal to 0.8 µm for the purpose of providing an improved sealing effect between the seal and the mounting seat since a rougher surface would provide more opportunity for leakage between the seal and the mounting seat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
103: Happ in view of Barberis
Applicant argues that “part of the increased friction appears to be produced by Barberis’ flange 16 being biased against the flange 8 and the resultant force of Barberis’ sleeve portion 15 pressing away from the flange 16 and against a cylindrical surface. Firstly, this is merely Applicant’s opinion of how the prior art reference functions as Applicant’s conclusions are not recited by Barberis. The examiner notes that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See MPEP §2145. Secondly, Applicant’s assertion of how Barberis works is actually refuted by Barberis in paragraph [0041], which states “the tapering of the sleeve keying portion 15 makes such a portion capable of achieving a more stable coupling with the inner ring 4, by increasing the friction between the sleeve keying portion 15 and the fitting surface”. It is clear that it is the tapered interface of the sleeve portion 15 together with the cylindrical-shaped mounting seat that provides the increased friction. Nowhere in Barberis is it stated, or even suggested, that the pressing of 16 onto the flange 8 is what provides part of the friction, as asserted by Applicant. To the contrary, Barberis does not even acknowledge that the portion of 16 that contacts 8 is pressed against it at all with any meaningful amount of force.
It would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art in accordance with basic mechanical engineering and physics that friction force is a function of the normal force between two surfaces and a friction coefficient. Providing a tapered sleeve that is pressed onto a cylindrical body would increase the frictional force between the two surfaces due to the reduced diameter of the tapered portion relative to the cylindrical mounting surface. A smaller diameter portion of the sleeve would have to stretch more than a larger diameter portion to fit onto the same cylindrical surface. This stretching of the smaller diameter results in increased hoop stresses which then translate into increased normal force. This would be the result whether the sleeve had a flange or not. Thus, Applicant cannot attribute the increase in friction to any interaction between the 8 flange of the hub and the flange of the sleeve at 16. Put another way, it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that pressing a tapered sleeve onto a cylindrical surface would increase the friction independently of a flange and as such, Applicant’s arguments regarding the necessity of the flange contact is inconsistent with both the statements of Barberis as well as the physics between the sleeve and the bearing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN B WAITS whose telephone number is (571)270-3664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6-4 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John R Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN B WAITS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights