Form you need to 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the embodiment shown in Figures 7 and 12 in the reply filed on 19 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected embodiments, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 May 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 11A.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "14" and "15" have both been used to designate the same element.
Reference characters "143" and "153" have both been used to designate the same element.
Reference characters "144" and "154" have both been used to designate the same element.
Reference characters "141" and "151" have both been used to designate the same element.
Reference characters "151A" and "155A" have both been used to designate the same element.
Reference characters "151" and "155" have both been used to designate the same element.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term - -is- - should be inserted prior to the term “formed” in lines 3 and 4 of claim 7.
The phrase “in a state in which” should be replaced with the phrase - -such that- - in line 5 of claim 14.
These corrections are for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2 and 13 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 2 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrases “configured to drive” and “configured to follow” are generally narrative (see section 9 below) and fail to define any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 13 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “configured to repel” is generally narrative (see section 9 below) and fails to define any actual physical structure of the invention.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hubert (2021/0115969).
Per claim 1, Hubert shows a wheel support device 10 including a hub bearing 20 for rotatably supporting a wheel. A hub carrier 30 supports the hub bearing 20. A sensor 60 detects rotation of the wheel, and a cap prevents the entry of foreign matter into the hub bearing 20. The cap includes an integrally formed deflector member that isolates the sensor 60 from the foreign matter.
Per claim 2, the hub bearing 20 is part of a driven wheel, such that a rotary body thereof is not connected to a drive shaft. The cap is connected to the hub bearing 20.
Per claim 6, it should be noted that the limitation that the cap is “formed by injection molding in which a resin material is injected into a mold” is a method limitation present in a product claim, and thus receives no patentable weight (see MPEP 2113).
Per claim 13, the cap includes a repelling portion formed on an outer circumferential portion thereof, for preventing foreign matter from entering the hub bearing 20.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baba et al (JP 2012/121390).
Per claim 1, Figures 1-2 of Baba et al shows a wheel support device including a hub bearing 1 for rotatably supporting a wheel. A hub carrier 2 supports the hub bearing 1. A sensor 14 detects rotation of the wheel, and a cap 15 prevents the entry of foreign matter into the hub bearing 1. The cap 15 includes an integrally formed deflector member 15b that isolates the sensor 14 from the foreign matter.
Per claim 2, the hub bearing 1 is part of a driven wheel, such that a rotary body thereof is not connected to a drive shaft. The cap 15 is connected to the hub bearing 1.
Per claim 6, it should be noted that the limitation that the cap is “formed by injection molding in which a resin material is injected into a mold” is a method limitation present in a product claim, and thus receives no patentable weight (see MPEP 2113).
Per claim 13, the cap 15 includes a repelling portion 15a formed on an outer circumferential portion thereof, for preventing foreign matter from entering the hub bearing 1.
Per claim 14, the hub bearing 1 includes a rotary body 4 connectable to a wheel, and the hub carrier 2 includes an accommodating hole portion in which part of the hub bearing 1 is accommodated. A fixing portion K for the sensor 14 is part of the hub carrier 2. The sensor 14 protrudes from an inner circumferential surface of the accommodating hole portion of the hub carrier 2.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubert. Hubert does not disclose the material from which the cap is formed. However, the use of a resin material to form wheel covers is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the cap of Hubert from a resin material, for the purpose of weight reduction (compared to a metal cap).
Double Patenting
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/774,488 (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.
Claims 1-2 and 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 5 of copending Application No. 18/773,960 (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
Claims 3-5 and 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show wheel bearing hubs with interior covers.
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
Prosecution Insights