CTNF 18/774,488 CTNF 77548 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "14" , "15", and "20" have all been used to designate the same element in Figure 12. Reference characters "143" and "153" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 12. Reference characters "144" , "154", and "24" have all been used to designate the same element Figure 12. Reference characters "141" and "151" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 12. 06-22-02 Reference characters cannot share the same leader line. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “shaft” should be removed following the term “hub” throughout the specification, to more accurately define the invention . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 3 and 6-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “so as to be” should be removed from line 2 of claim 3. The phrase “are disposed so as to” should be removed from line 5 of claim 6. The phrase “in a state in which” should be replaced with the phrase - -such that- - in line 2 of claim 7. The phrase “so as” should be removed from line 2 of claims 8-9. These corrections are for grammatical clarity . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 7 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “configured to detect” is a generally narrative phrase that fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention. Claim 12 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “configured to repel” is a generally narrative phrase that fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention. 07-34-07 AIA The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The term “large” in claims 1-12 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. No quantitative or qualitative limitations have been set forth in the claims to clearly define this term. Furthermore, no datum or comparison point has been set forth in the claims to assist in defining this term. The term “small” in claims 2-3 and 5-7 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. No quantitative or qualitative limitations have been set forth in the claims to clearly define this term. Furthermore, no datum or comparison point has been set forth in the claims to assist in defining this term. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 and 9-12, as best understood , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (9,796,212) . Per claim 1, Figures 1-3 and 5 of Nakamura shows a wheel support device including a hub bearing for rotatably supporting a wheel, a hub carrier 40 supporting the hub bearing, and a sensor 38 for detecting a rotational state of the wheel. An assembly member 39 is attached to the hub bearing (at outer race component 34), and includes a “large” diameter protruding portion 67 that cooperates with the hub carrier 40 to prevent entry of foreign matter toward the sensor 38. Per claim 9, the assembly member 39 is a cap, which includes the “large” diameter protruding portion 67. Per claim 10, the “large” diameter protruding portion 67 is integrally formed with the cap 39. Per claim 11, the “large” diameter protruding portion 67 includes a plurality of concavities 73 and convexities 72 formed along the circumferential direction thereof (see Figure 5). Per claim 12, the “large” diameter protruding portion 67 includes a repelling portion 66 formed at an outer circumferential portion thereof . 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakamoto et al (JP 2002-316508) . Per claim 1, Figure 5 of Sakamoto et al shows a wheel support device including a hub bearing for rotatably supporting a wheel 23, a hub carrier 21 supporting the hub bearing, and a sensor 4a for detecting a rotational state of the wheel 23. An assembly member 28 is attached to the hub bearing and the hub carrier 21, and includes a “large” diameter protruding portion 36 that cooperates with the hub carrier 21 to prevent entry of foreign matter toward the sensor 4a. Per claim 2, the hub carrier 21 includes an accommodation hole portion 22 in which part 1d of the hub bearing is accommodated, and a “small” diameter protruding portion 37 is provided along the inner circumferential surface of the accommodation hole portion 22. The “small” diameter protruding portion 37 cooperates with the “large” diameter protruding portion 36 to prevent entry of foreign matter. Per claim 3, the “large” diameter protruding portion 36 and the “small” diameter protruding portion 37 are disposed adjacent each other in an entering direction of the foreign matter toward the sensor 4a. Per claim 4, a plurality of “large” diameter protruding portions (namely protrusion 36, and the adjacent stepped shoulder portion of the assembly member 28) are arranged along the entering direction. Per claim 5, an outer diameter of the “large” diameter protruding portion 36 is greater than an inner diameter of the “small” diameter protruding portion 37. Per claim 7, the sensor 4a is attached to a fixing portion of the hub carrier 21, with a detection portion protruding from the inner circumferential surface of the accommodation hole portion 22, to allow detection of the rotational state of a rotary body 3a of the hub bearing connected to the wheel 23. The “small” diameter protruding portion 37 is disposed between the “large” diameter protruding portion 36 and the detection portion in the entering direction of foreign matter toward the detection portion of the sensor 4a. Per claim 8, the assembly member 28 is a drive shaft coupled to the hub bearing to transmit driving force from a driving source. The drive shaft includes the “large” diameter protruding portion 36 . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-35 Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/776,596 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claim(s) is/are fully encompassed by the patented claims. Therefore, it is obvious that the Applicant is claiming the same invention in different and/or broader terms . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-35 Claim s 1 with 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/743,960 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claim(s) is/are fully encompassed by the patented claims. Therefore, it is obvious that the Applicant is claiming the same invention in different and/or broader terms . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 AIA Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show covers or sealing devices on wheel bearing hub assemblies . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4. 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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-6684. 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. /JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/774,488 Page 2 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/774,488 Page 3 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/774,488 Page 4 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/774,488 Page 5 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/774,488 Page 6 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/774,488 Page 7 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/774,488 Page 8 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/774,488 Page 9 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/774,488 Page 10 Art Unit: 3615
Prosecution Insights