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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 10 and 11 claim a material of “the spacer ring” (“lighter than bearing steel” and “aluminum or aluminum alloy” respectively) while the specification does not describe or mention any type of material preference or requirement for the spacer ring.
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 1-14 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 1 recites the limitation “a wheel adapter rotatably supported on the stub axle via the wheel bearing unit” in line 3. The term “via” is a generally narrative term that does not impart a specific structural relationship between the “wheel adapter”, “stub axle”, and “wheel bearing unit”.
Claim 3 recites the phrase “wherein the outer ring integral member is a common outer ring of the two rows of bearings or other members, including but not limited to a wheel hub” (emphasis added). The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined because there is no definite limitation and it is unclear what exactly is being claimed. See MPEP § 2173.05(d)
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the bearing outer ring”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the adapter” in lines 4 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the screw fastening point”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 introduces “at least one screw fastening point” (emphasis added). It is unclear if there is only one or more than one screw fastening point.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the outboard end face of the outer ring integral member”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the circumferential radial inner face of the base” in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the rolling bodies” in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the plurality of threaded fasteners” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only introduces “at least one threaded fastener” (emphasis added) not a plurality.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the plurality of threaded fasteners” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only introduces “at least one threaded fastener” (emphasis added) not a plurality.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the screw openings” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 introduces screw holes but an opening is not necessarily the same thing as a hole.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the threaded openings” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 introduces threaded holes but an opening is not necessarily the same thing as a hole.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the spacer ring”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the spacer ring”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamperl US 20030111893 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Hamperl discloses a vehicle wheel end sub-assembly comprising: a wheel bearing unit 3 configured to be assembled on a vehicle stub axle 2, and a wheel adapter 3.2 rotatably supported on the stub axle 2 via the wheel bearing unit, wherein the wheel bearing unit 3 comprises two rows of bearings 8.1, 8.2 and an outer ring integral member 3.1, wherein the wheel adapter 3.2 is releasably connected to the outer ring integral member 3.1 at at least one screw fastening point by at least one threaded fastener 14 and is configured to connect a brake disk 4 to a wheel 10, and wherein the at least one screw fastening point is located at a radial periphery of the outer ring integral member 3.1 at a location axially spaced from an outboard end face of the outer ring integral member 3.1 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Hamperl discloses the vehicle wheel end sub-assembly according to claim 1 wherein the outer ring integral member 3.1 is a common outer ring of the two rows of bearings 8.1,8.2 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Hamperl discloses the vehicle wheel end sub-assembly according to claim 1 wherein the outer ring integral member 3.1 is a common outer ring of the two rows of bearings 8.1,8.2 (Fig. 1). The portion of the claim after “or” is seen as an optional form of the invention (albeit an unclear and non-limiting option).
Regarding claim 4, Hamperl discloses the vehicle wheel end sub-assembly as claimed in claim 2 wherein the outer ring integral member 3.1 includes a protrusion having an outboard end face 15, wherein the adapter 3.2 includes a base 13 in contact with the outboard end face 15 of the protrusion, and wherein the screw fastening point is located at the junction of the outboard end face 15 and the base 13 of the adapter 3.2 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Hamperl discloses the vehicle wheel end sub-assembly as claimed in claim 4 wherein the protrusion has a circumferential radial outer surface radially contacting a radially inner surface of the adapter 3.2, wherein the outboard end face 15 of the protrusion includes a plurality of threaded holes, wherein the base includes an inner circumferential flange having screw holes aligned with the threaded holes of the protrusion, and wherein the outboard end face of the outer ring integral member axially contacts the flange. (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 14, Hamperl discloses the vehicle wheel end sub-assembly according to claim 1 wherein the at least one screw fastening point is located axially between the two rows of bearings 8.1, 8.2 (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-13 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art shows various alternative wheel bearing unit designs which have a wheel connection flange (adapter) releasably attached to an outer ring integral member at a point axially distant from an outboard end face.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX R PALMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm MST.
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.
/AP/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights