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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 3 fails to show proper cross-hatching in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). This figure has been described in the disclosure as a sectional view; however, it does not show any cross-hatching to indicate the sectioned portion(s).
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 14-19 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.
Re Claims 14-19: It is not clear if the following elements are meant to be positively claimed as part of the claimed “constant velocity joint (CVJ)” or if they are meant only as functional limitations related to an intended use of the “constant velocity joint (CVJ)”:
The “stub shaft” (including its “external splined interface”, its “first and second ends”, and its “flange”);
The “wheel end assembly”;
The “bearing assembly”;
The “spindle” (including the “two snap rings” used to retain the CVJ to the spindle and its “flange section” and “nose section”); and
The “housing” (including its “cylindrical mounting feature”, the “plurality of fasteners” used to fasten the mounting feature with the flange of the stub shaft, and its “second bearing assembly”)
The preamble of each of these claims is directed to a “constant velocity joint (CVJ)” and each of the elements above are initially recited functionally as an intended use of the claimed CVJ. However, further limitations in the claims related to these elements (see each of dependent claims 15-19) appear to indicate that perhaps they are meant to be positively claimed as part of the “constant velocity joint (CVJ)”. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined because the scope of the claim is unclear.
For examination purposes, for this Office Action only, the Examiner will interpret the claims as though these elements are NOT positively claimed as part of the “constant velocity joint (CVJ)”, but rather is recited only as a functional limitation related to an intended use of the “constant velocity joint (CVJ)”.
Clarification and correction are required.
Re Claim 18: Claim 18 recites the limitation "the flange of the stub shaft" in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, for this Office Action only, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as --a flange of the stub shaft--.
Clarification and correction are required.
Re Claim 19: This claim is considered indefinite because of its dependency from indefinite claim 18.
Examiner notes that any prior art rejections made in this Office Action are made in view of the claims, as best understood by the Examiner, in view of the above indefiniteness rejections.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Language
From the outset, it should be noted that some of the language in the claims is functional in nature. For example, in claims 14-19 (as best understood by the Examiner) the language related to a “stub shaft”, a “wheel end assembly”, a “bearing assembly”, a “spindle”, and a “housing” (as discussed above) is functional in nature and limited patentable weight is given to this section of the claim. Additionally, Examiner notes that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does and thus, a prior art device must only be capable of performing the stated function in order to read on the functional limitation. In this instance, the prior art discloses every structural limitation of the claim and thus this limitation fails to distinguish the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. Please see MPEP 2114.
[Examiner notes that this section of the Office Action does not constitute a rejection or objection, but is merely meant to indicate the manner in which the claims have been interpreted by the Examiner.]
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baker (US Patent 5,492,417).
PNG
media_image1.png
463
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 1: Baker discloses a wheel end assembly of a vehicle (see Figs. 1-2), the wheel end assembly comprising:
a wheel hub assembly (for example, the connection portion of the wheel, to be connected to flange 14; not shown);
a stub shaft (12) having a first end (the right-hand end in Figs. 1-2) including an external splined interface (16), and a second end (the left-hand end in Figs. 1-5) including a flange (14) configured to be fastened to the wheel hub assembly; and
a constant velocity joint (CVJ) (32), where the CVJ includes an outer race (34) comprising a bore with an internal splined interface (36) configured to mate with the external splined interface (16) of the stub shaft.
Re Claim 6: Baker discloses a wheel end assembly, wherein the flange (14) is fastened to a housing of the wheel hub assembly (for example, the connection portion of the wheel, to be connected to flange 14; not shown) via a plurality of fasteners (see the fastener attached to flange 14; Figs. 1 and 2).
Re Claim 14, as best understood by the Examiner: Baker discloses a constant velocity joint (CVJ) (32; Figs. 1-2) of a vehicle, comprising an outer race (34) including a bore with an internal splined (36) interface configured to mate with an external splined interface (16) of a stub shaft (12) of a wheel end assembly (for example, the connection portion of the wheel, to be connected to flange 14; not shown).
Re Claim 15, as best understood by the Examiner: Baker discloses a CVJ (32), wherein the external splined interface (16) is at a first end (the right-hand end in Figs. 1-2) of the stub shaft (12) and a second, opposing end (the left-hand end in Figs. 1-2) of the stub shaft includes a flange (14) configured to be fastened to a wheel hub of the wheel end assembly (for example, the connection portion of the wheel, to be connected to flange 14; not shown).
Re Claim 16, as best understood by the Examiner: Baker discloses a CVJ (32), wherein the stub shaft (12) extends from the wheel hub to the CVJ (32) through a spindle (for example, as shown for hub 30), and the stub shaft (12) is supported by a bearing assembly (22) interposed between the outer race and the spindle.
Re Claim 17, as best understood by the Examiner: Baker discloses a CVJ (32), wherein the CVJ (32) configured to be retained to the spindle (30) via two snap rings (for example, as shown for rings 18, 28).
Re Claim 18, as best understood by the Examiner: Baker discloses a CVJ (32), wherein a flange (14) of the stub shaft (12) is configured to be fastened to a cylindrical mounting feature of a housing of the wheel hub (for example, the connection portion of the wheel, to be connected to flange 14; not shown) via a plurality of fasteners (see the fastener attached to flange 14; Figs. 1-2).
Re Claim 19, as best understood by the Examiner: Baker discloses a CVJ (32), wherein the spindle (30) includes a flange section (for example, as shown for the section that attached to suspension 50; Fig. 2) that extends radially outward from a central axis of the spindle, and a nose section (the portion shown at ref. no. 30) centered around the central axis, the nose section configured to be retained to an inner race (for example as shown for the inner race at bearing 20) of a second bearing assembly (at 20) of the housing via a spindle nut.
Re Claim 20: Baker discloses a method, comprising:
rotating a wheel of a vehicle via a constant velocity joint (CVJ) (32), where a torque generated on an axle shaft of the vehicle is transferred to a stub shaft (12) fastened to a wheel hub (for example, the connection portion of the wheel, to be connected to flange 14; not shown) including the wheel through the CVJ, the stub shaft (12) having an external splined interface (16) that meshes with an internal splined interface (36) of an outer race (34) of the CVJ (32).
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (US Patent 5,492,417), as applied to claims 1, 6, and 14-20 above, and further in view of Sahashi (US Patent 6,146,022).
Re Claims 7-9: Baker, as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, discloses a wheel end assembly significantly as claimed except wherein the flange is fastened to a mounting feature that is cylindrical in shape (as is required by claim 7); wherein the mounting feature curves around an opening that the stub shaft extends through (as is required by claim 8); and/or wherein the mounting feature extends longitudinally outward from the housing towards a wheel of the vehicle, along a central axis of the housing (as is required by claim 9).
Sahashi teaches the use of a wheel end assembly (see Fig. 9) comprising a wheel hub assembly (at H); a stub shaft (see annotated Fig. 9 below) including a flange (at 7); and a constant velocity joint (CVJ) (J2) having an outer race (3); and further wherein the flange is fastened to a mounting feature (se annotated Fig. 9 below) that is cylindrical in shape; wherein the mounting feature curves around an opening (see below) that the stub shaft extends through; and/or wherein the mounting feature extends longitudinally outward from the housing towards a wheel of the vehicle, along a central axis of the housing; for the purpose of attaching the wheel end assembly to the wheel.
PNG
media_image2.png
724
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Baker, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the flange is fastened to a mounting feature that is cylindrical in shape (as is required by claim 7); wherein the mounting feature curves around an opening that the stub shaft extends through (as is required by claim 8); and/or wherein the mounting feature extends longitudinally outward from the housing towards a wheel of the vehicle, along a central axis of the housing (as is required by claim 9), as taught by Sahashi, for the purpose of attaching the wheel end assembly to the wheel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 10-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 requires the wheel end assembly of claim 1 and further comprising “a spindle interposed between the outer race and the wheel hub assembly.” As discussed above, Baker is considered to be the closes prior art device of record to the disclosed invention. Baker fails to disclose a wheel end assembly that further comprises a “spindle” as claimed in claim 2. Further, none of the other prior art devices of record teach or disclose a wheel end assembly having all the requirements of claim 1 and further comprising a “spindle” as claimed in claim 2. Nor would it have been obvious to modify the device of Baker or any other prior art device of record in such a manner since there would have been no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. For at least these reasons, claim 2 is considered to be allowable over the prior art of record. Claims 3-5 and 10-13 are considered allowable at least due to their dependence from claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MCMAHON whose telephone number is (571)270-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571) 270-5281. 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.
/MATTHEW R MCMAHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights