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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser DE 102013203005.
Re clm 1, Kaiser discloses a bearing device for a vehicle wheel, comprising: an outer member (6, Fig. 2) having double-row outer raceway surfaces on an inner periphery; an inner member (16 and 9) having double-row inner raceway surfaces facing the double- row outer raceway surfaces; and double-row rolling elements (20a and 20b) rollably accommodated between the double-row outer raceway surfaces and the double-row inner raceway surfaces, wherein a pitch circle diameter b (TK) of the double-row rolling elements and an inter-rolling element pitch (X) a between the rolling element on a first side in an axial direction and the rolling element on a second side in the axial direction, among the double-row rolling elements, satisfy b/a > 2.0 (greater than 2 and less than 2.6; [0009]).
Kaiser Fig. 2 does not disclose retainers and thus does not disclose the pitch circle diameter b and the inter-rolling element pitch a are configured such that retainers of the rolling elements between the double-row outer raceway surfaces and the double- row inner raceway surfaces do not interfere with each other while reducing an axial dimension of the bearing device.
Kaiser’s Fig. 1 discloses retainers (surrounding balls 4a and 4b). Retainers are well-known for rolling bearing devices to evenly space the balls, properly distribute the load and to prevent contact between adjacent rolling elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fig. 2 of Kaiser with retainers (such as those shown in Fig. 1) for the purpose of evenly spacing the balls, properly distributing the load and preventing contact between adjacent rolling elements
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagawa JP 2007-292224 in view of Kaiser DE 102013203005.
Re clm 1, Miyagawa discloses a bearing device (Fig. 2) for a vehicle wheel, comprising: an outer member (8) having double-row outer raceway surfaces on an inner periphery; an inner member (1 and 2) having double-row inner raceway surfaces facing the double- row outer raceway surfaces; and double-row rolling elements (11) rollably accommodated between the double-row outer raceway surfaces and the double-row inner raceway surfaces, wherein a pitch circle diameter b of the double-row rolling elements and an inter-rolling element pitch a between the rolling element on a first side in an axial direction and the rolling element on a second side in the axial direction, among the double-row rolling elements, such that the retainers of the rolling elements between the double-row outer raceway surfaces and the double-row inner raceway surfaces do not interfere with each other (Fig. 2).
Miyagawa does not disclose satisfying the following relationship: b/a > 2.0.
Kaiser discloses a pitch circle diameter b (TK) of the double-row rolling elements and an inter-rolling element pitch (X) a between the rolling element on one side in an axial direction and the rolling element on an other side in the axial direction, among the double-row rolling elements, satisfy a following relationship: b/a > 2.0 (greater than 2 and less than 2.6; [0009]) for the purpose of improving rigidity and tilting stiffness of the bearing ([0008], [0009] and [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Miyagawa to satisfy the following relationship: b/a > 2.0 for the purpose of improving rigidity and tilting stiffness of the bearing.
The combination of Miyagawa in view of Kaiser further discloses the pitch circle diameter b and the inter-rolling element pitch a are configured such that retainers of the rolling elements between the double-row outer raceway surfaces and the double- row inner raceway surfaces do not interfere with each other while reducing an axial dimension of the bearing device. As shown in Miyagawa, the retainers 12 barely protrude axially inward past the balls. Thus, changing the relationship of Miyagawa to have the relationship b/a would not impact the retainers nor cause them to interfere.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagawa JP 2007-292224 in view of Kaiser DE 102013203005 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Orey U.S. 2009/0096276.
Miyagawa in view of Kaiser discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 2, Miyagawa further discloses a flange (3) extending outward in a radial direction from one end portion of the inner member in the axial direction; a hub bolt (shown at top of 3, Fig. 2) press-fitted into a bolt hole defined in the flange; and a seal member (13) configured to close an opening end on an end side of an annular space defined by the outer member and the inner member in the axial direction, the seal member does not protrude toward an outer diameter side from an outer peripheral surface on an end side of the outer member in the axial direction (shown in Fig. 2 and 4).
The improvement of Kaiser further discloses the pitch circle diameter b of the double-row rolling elements and the inter-rolling element pitch a between the rolling element on one side in the axial direction and the rolling element on the other side in the axial direction, among the double-row rolling elements, satisfy the following relationship: b/a ≤ 3.6 (greater than 2 and less than 2.6; [0009]).
Miyagawa is silent as to the dimensions of Fig. 2 and does not disclose a pitch circle diameter c of the hub bolt is 100 mm.
Orey teaches the pitch circle diameter of the hub bolts is a result effective variable which affects the load rating of the vehicle ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miyagawa and provide a pitch circle diameter c of the hub bolt is 100 mm, 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). On one hand, if the pitch circle diameter is too small, then the wheel bearing will not provide adequate load capacity. On the other hand, however, if the pitch circle diameter is too large, then the wheel hub becomes unnecessarily large adversely affecting the weight of the device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagawa JP 2007-292224 in view of Kaiser DE 102013203005 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kametaka U.S. 2009/0148091.
Miyagawa in view of Kaiser discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 4, Miyagawa further discloses a seal member (13, Fig. 2 and 4) configured to close an opening end on an end side of an annular space defined by the outer member and the inner member in the axial direction, wherein the inner member has a recess (arced cavity in left end of hub 2, Fig. 2) recessed from an end in the axial direction toward the second side in the axial direction, and a slidable contact surface (21) with which the seal member is in sliding contact.
Miyagawa does not disclose in the inner member, a portion where the inner raceway surface on the first side in the axial direction is defined and a portion where the slidable contact surface is formed have heat- treated hardened layers, a thickness d1 between the slidable contact surface and an inner peripheral surface of the recess is twice or more a depth d2 of the heat-treated hardened layer of the portion where the slidable contact surface is defined, a thickness e1 between the inner raceway surface on the first side in the axial direction and the inner peripheral surface of the recess is twice or more a depth e2 of the heat-treated hardened layer of the portion where the inner-side raceway surface is defined, and a difference between the thickness d1 and the thickness e1 is 5 mm or less.
Kametaka teaches in the inner member, a portion (at d2, Fig. 2) where the inner raceway surface on the first side in the axial direction is formed and a portion (at d1) where the slidable contact surface is defined have heat- treated hardened layers (8; [0062]-[0063]), a thickness d1 between the slidable contact surface and an inner peripheral surface of the recess is twice or more a depth d2 of the heat-treated hardened layer of the portion where the slidable contact surface is defined (at least twice the depth; [0062]), a thickness e1 between the inner raceway surface on the first side in the axial direction and the inner peripheral surface of the recess is twice or more a depth e2 of the heat-treated hardened layer of the portion where the inner-side raceway surface is defined (at least twice the depth; [0062]), and a difference between the thickness d1 and the thickness e1 is 5 mm or less (2 mm variation of hardened depth; [0063]) for the purpose of being able to stand loads when a vehicle travels in a curved way ([0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Miyagawa and provide in the inner member, a portion where the inner raceway surface on the first side in the axial direction is defined and a portion where the slidable contact surface is defined have heat- treated hardened layers, a thickness d1 between the slidable contact surface and an inner peripheral surface of the recess is twice or more a depth d2 of the heat-treated hardened layer of the portion where the slidable contact surface is defined, a thickness e1 between the inner raceway surface on the first side in the axial direction and the inner peripheral surface of the recess is twice or more a depth e2 of the heat-treated hardened layer of the portion where the inner-side raceway surface is defined, and a difference between the thickness d1 and the thickness e1 is 5 mm or less for the purpose of being able to stand loads when a vehicle travels in a curved way.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki JP 2011-117529 in view of Kaiser DE 102013203005.
Re clm 1, Matsuki discloses a bearing device (Fig. 2) for a vehicle wheel, comprising: an outer member (27) having double-row outer raceway surfaces on an inner periphery; an inner member (23 and 24) having double-row inner raceway surfaces facing the double- row outer raceway surfaces; and double-row rolling elements (26) rollably accommodated between the double-row outer raceway surfaces and the double-row inner raceway surfaces, wherein a pitch circle diameter b of the double-row rolling elements and an inter-rolling element pitch a between the rolling element on a first side in an axial direction and the rolling element on a second side in the axial direction, among the double-row rolling elements, such that the retainers of the rolling elements between the double-row outer raceway surfaces and the double-row inner raceway surfaces do not interfere with each other (Fig. 2).
Matsuki does not disclose satisfying the following relationship: b/a > 2.0.
Kaiser discloses a pitch circle diameter b (TK) of the double-row rolling elements and an inter-rolling element pitch (X) a between the rolling element on one side in an axial direction and the rolling element on an other side in the axial direction, among the double-row rolling elements, satisfy a following relationship: b/a > 2.0 (greater than 2 and less than 2.6; [0009]) for the purpose of improving rigidity and tilting stiffness of the bearing ([0008], [0009] and [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Matsuki to satisfy the following relationship: b/a > 2.0 for the purpose of improving rigidity and tilting stiffness of the bearing.
The combination of Matsuki in view of Kaiser further discloses the pitch circle diameter b and the inter-rolling element pitch a are configured such that retainers of the rolling elements between the double-row outer raceway surfaces and the double- row inner raceway surfaces do not interfere with each other while reducing an axial dimension of the bearing device. As shown in Matsuki, the retainers 12 barely protrude axially inward past the balls. Thus, changing the relationship of Matsuki to have the relationship b/a would not impact the retainers nor cause them to interfere.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki JP 2011-117529 in view of Kaiser DE 102013203005 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Orey U.S. 2009/0096276.
Matsuki in view of Kaiser discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 3, Matsuki further discloses a flange (28) extending outward in a radial direction from one end portion of the inner member in the axial direction; a hub bolt (28a) press-fitted into a bolt hole defined in the flange; and a seal member (34; Fig. 3-4 and 6-10) configured to close an opening end on an end side of an annular space defined by the outer member and the inner member in the axial direction, the seal member has a weir portion (37d) protruding toward an outer diameter side from an outer peripheral surface on an end side of the outer member in the axial direction.
The improvement of Kaiser further discloses the pitch circle diameter b of the double-row rolling elements and the inter-rolling element pitch a between the rolling element on one side in the axial direction and the rolling element on the other side in the axial direction, among the double-row rolling elements, satisfy the following relationship: b/a < 3.2 (greater than 2 and less than 2.6; [0009]).
Matsuki is silent as to the dimensions of Fig. 2 and does not disclose a pitch circle diameter c of the hub bolt is 100 mm.
Orey teaches the pitch circle diameter of the hub bolts is a result effective variable which affects the load rating of the vehicle ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsuki and provide a pitch circle diameter c of the hub bolt is 100 mm, 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). On one hand, if the pitch circle diameter is too small, then the wheel bearing will not provide adequate load capacity. On the other hand, however, if the pitch circle diameter is too large, then the wheel hub becomes unnecessarily large affect the weight of the device.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki JP 2011-117529 in view of Kaiser DE 102013203005 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kametaka U.S. 2009/0148091.
Matsuki in view of Kaiser discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 4, Matsuki further discloses a seal member (34, Fig. 2-4 and 6-10) configured to close an opening end on an end side of an annular space defined by the outer member and the inner member in the axial direction, wherein the inner member has a recess (cavity in 23 in which nut 33 is located, Fig. 2) recessed from an end in the axial direction toward the second side in the axial direction, and a slidable contact surface (28b) with which the seal member is in slidable contact.
Matsuki does not disclose in the inner member, a portion where the inner raceway surface on the first side in the axial direction is defined and a portion where the slidable contact surface is defined have heat- treated hardened layers, a thickness d1 between the slidable contact surface and an inner peripheral surface of the recess is twice or more a depth d2 of the heat-treated hardened layer of the portion where the slidable contact surface is defined, a thickness e1 between the inner raceway surface on the first side in the axial direction and the inner peripheral surface of the recess is twice or more a depth e2 of the heat-treated hardened layer of the portion where the inner-side raceway surface is defined, and a difference between the thickness d1 and the thickness e1 is 5 mm or less.
Kametaka teaches in the inner member, a portion (at d2, Fig. 2) where the inner raceway surface on the first side in the axial direction is defined and a portion (at d1) where the slidable contact surface is defined have heat- treated hardened layers (8; [0062]-[0063]), a thickness d1 between the slidable contact surface and an inner peripheral surface of the recess is twice or more a depth d2 of the heat-treated hardened layer of the portion where the slidable contact surface is defined (at least twice the depth; [0062]), a thickness e1 between the inner raceway surface on the first side in the axial direction and the inner peripheral surface of the recess is twice or more a depth e2 of the heat-treated hardened layer of the portion where the inner-side raceway surface is defined (at least twice the depth; [0062]), and a difference between the thickness d1 and the thickness e1 is 5 mm or less (2 mm variation of hardened depth; [0063]) for the purpose of being able to stand loads when a vehicle travels in a curved way ([0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Matsuki and provide in the inner member, a portion where the inner raceway surface on the first side in the axial direction is defined and a portion where the sliding contact surface is defined have heat- treated hardened layers, a thickness d1 between the sliding contact surface and an inner peripheral surface of the recess is twice or more a depth d2 of the heat-treated hardened layer of the portion where the sliding contact surface is defined, a thickness e1 between the inner raceway surface on the first side in the axial direction and the inner peripheral surface of the recess is twice or more a depth e2 of the heat-treated hardened layer of the portion where the inner-side raceway surface is formed, and a difference between the thickness d1 and the thickness e1 is 5 mm or less for the purpose of being able to stand loads when a vehicle travels in a curved way.
Re clm 5, Matsuki further discloses the inner member has an inclined surface (inclined surface just to right of left row of balls) between the inner raceway surface on the first side in the axial direction and an outer peripheral surface on the second side in the axial direction with respect to the inner raceway surface on one side in the axial direction.
The improvement of Kametaka further discloses and in the inner member, a portion where the inclined surface is defined has the heat-treated hardened layer, a thickness f1 between the inclined surface and the inner peripheral surface of the recess is twice or more a depth f2 of the heat-treated hardened layer of the portion where the inclined surface is defined ([0062]), and a difference between the thickness f1 and the thickness e1 is 5 mm or less (2mm variation; [0063]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kaiser does not disclose retainers, however, Fig. 1 of Kaiser does indeed disclose retainers. Furthermore, it is well known in the art to provide wheel hubs with retainers as noted in the rejection above.
Applicant further argues that Miyagawa does not disclose that the holders do not interfere with each other, however, this is incorrect since Miyagawa shows the holders as being axially spaced. Miyagawa in view of Kaiser discloses reducing an axial dimension of the bearing unit while providing holders that do not interfere. This also applies to Matsuki in view of Kaiser.
Applicant’s assertion that none of the references disclose retainers do not interfere with each other while reducing an axial dimension of the bearing device is incorrect since the features are indeed taught by the combination of references. Applicant is attempting to attack the references individually. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s argument that the ratio is provided for a different reason does not negate the fact that ratio is still a result effective variable. Furthermore, Applicant has undercut his own argument by stating the ratio “yield the particularly advantageous and unexpected results of…improving the rigidity”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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