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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1,2,4,7,8,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki(US 20150069826 A1).
Regarding claim 1,7,12 Suzuki discloses a vehicle, comprising: a vehicle body(para 0069,0076); and a knuckle assembly(fig 1) connected to the vehicle body(para 0069,0072), the knuckle assembly including: a knuckle(9); and a bearing assembly(fig 1) supported by the knuckle, the bearing assembly including: a rotatable hub(103); a wheel end(area around 8); a knuckle end(area around 21) opposite the wheel end; a grease cap(15) fixed at the knuckle end; and a bump guard(16) fixed to the grease cap opposite the rotatable hub.
Regarding claim 2,Suzuki discloses a wheel(para 0002 ) connected to the rotatable hub(para 0006).
Regarding claim 4,8 Suzuki discloses wherein the knuckle has a bore(20, fig 2), and the bump guard is disposed in the bore(fig 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki(US 20150069826 A1) in view of Aoki(US 20160288567 A1).
Regarding claim 3,Suzuki does not disclose the hub is non-driven. However, Aoki discloses a similar knuckle assembly wherein the rotatable hub is non-driven(para 0085). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Suzuki such that the hub can be non-driven as required by the operating needs of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 5,6,9,10,11,13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki(US 20150069826 A1) in view of Sicilia(US 8146930 B2).
Regarding claim 5,10 Suzuki does not disclose the bump guard comprising a channel and a seal However Sicilia discloses a similar knuckle assembly wherein a cap(48) includes a channel(area around 62, fig 2), and further comprising a seal(60) engaged with the channel. The combination with Suzuki would result in wherein the seal abuts the bore. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki such that the bump guard comprises a channel and a seal to provide a cavity for the sealant as an alternative, secure method for installing the bump guard to the knuckle assembly.
Regarding claim 6,Suzuki does not disclose wherein the bump guard includes a seal extending outward. However, Sicilia discloses wherein the bump guard(cap; 48) includes a seal(62) extending radially outward from a circumference of the cap(fig 2), and wherein the seal abuts the bore. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki such that the bump guard comprises a seal extending radially outward from a circumference of the cap to provide an alternative method to attach the seal to the knuckle assembly. Sicilia further does not disclose the seal and the cap are monolithic, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for a monolithic seal and cap, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 9,the combination of Suzuki in view of Sicilia would result in wherein the knuckle assembly includes a seal extending radially outward from the bump guard(cap, 48) to a radially inward facing surface of the bore(fig 1, Sicilia).
Regarding claim 10,Suzuki does not disclose a channel however Sicilia discloses a similar assembly wherein the outer cap includes a channel(area around 62), and wherein the seal(62) is engaged with the channel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki such that the outer cap comprises a channel and a seal to provide an alternative method of mounting the cap.
Regarding claim 11,Suzuki does not disclose wherein the bump guard and the seal are monolithic. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the bump guard and seal monolithic, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 13,Suzuki discloses wherein the bump guard is a circular disc(para 0086).
Regarding claim 14,Suzuki discloses wherein the bump guard is fixed to the grease cap with an adhesive(para 0118).
Regarding claim 15,Suzuki discloses wherein the bump guard is fixed to the grease cap with a heat activated bond(para 0118).
Regarding claim 16,Suzuki discloses wherein the bump guard is a non-metallic material(para 0084).
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki does not disclose the bump guard comprising a channel and a seal However Sicilia discloses a similar knuckle assembly wherein a cap(48) includes a channel(area around 62, fig 2), and further comprising a seal(60) engaged with the channel. The combination with Suzuki would result in wherein the seal abuts the bore. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki such that the bump guard comprises a channel and a seal to provide a cavity for the sealant as an alternative, secure method for installing the bump guard to the knuckle assembly.
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki does not disclose wherein the bump guard includes a seal extending outward. However, Sicilia discloses wherein the bump guard(cap; 48) includes a seal(62) extending radially outward from a circumference of the cap(fig 2), and wherein the seal abuts the bore. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki such that the bump guard comprises a seal extending radially outward from a circumference of the cap to provide an alternative method to attach the seal to the knuckle assembly. Sicilia does not disclose the seal and the cap are monolithic however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for a monolithic seal and cap, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 19,Suzuki discloses wherein the grease cap is spaced from the hub(fig 1).
Regarding claim 20,Suzuki discloses wherein the bearing assembly includes an outer ring(2), the grease cap fixed to the outer ring(fig 1, 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMS DHANANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (out of office every other Friday) - 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571) 270-5985. 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.
SHAMS . DHANANI
Examiner
Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights