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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “16” has been used to designate both a spindle and what appears to be tabs on the mounting plate in Fig. 1.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 330 (Fig. 2), 60 (Fig. 4) and 462 (Fig. 7).
The lead line for reference character 182 in Fig. 3 appears to be directed to the locking member instead of an opening of the spindle nut as described.
The lead line for reference character 171 in Fig. 3 appears to be directed to an axially inboard surface of cone 22A instead of a stop surface of the spindle as described.
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: 214 (paragraph [0026]) and 422 (paragraph [0037]).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “424” has been used to designate both a cavity in the hubcap and what appears to be an opening of the hubcap that is closed with plug 420 in Fig. 7.
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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 6, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goodell et al. (US 4,431,043; hereinafter “Goodell”).
Regarding claim 1, Goodell discloses a wheel end system comprising: a spindle 24 having an interior at 66 and a side wall (unlabeled wall of 24 shown in Fig. 2 that abuts bearings 32, 33 on a radially outer surface thereof and abuts the interior or bore at 66 on a radially inner surface thereof) extending about the interior (Fig. 2); a wheel hub 30; inboard and outboard bearings 33, 32 rotatably connecting the wheel hub to the spindle (Fig. 2); a spacer 42 between the inboard and outboard bearings (Fig. 2), the spacer extending about the spindle and having a spacing 60 between the spacer and the spindle (Fig. 2); and an airflow opening 76 of the side wall of the spindle having an inlet portion (radially outer portion of opening 76) outboard of the inboard bearing (Fig. 2), the airflow opening configured to (i.e., capable of) permit air to travel from the spacing between the spacer and the spindle into the interior of the spindle (evident from at least Fig. 2 and lines 46-57 of col. 5 that air is capable of traveling from 60 to 66 inasmuch as 60 is in fluid communication with 66).
Regarding claim 2, Goodell further discloses the inlet portion of the airflow opening opens to the spacing between the spacer and the spindle (Fig. 2); wherein the airflow opening has an outlet portion (radially inner portion of opening 76) that opens to the interior of the spindle (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Goodell further discloses the outboard bearing includes an outboard bearing cone (unlabeled radially inner bearing cone of 32 shown in Fig. 2) having a fit with the spindle configured to (i.e., capable of) permit air to travel between the outboard bearing cone and the spindle into the spacing between the spacer and the spindle (note first bore 66 extends axially outboard so as to be radially between the outboard bearing cone and a portion of the spindle; the air within first bore 66 is capable of traveling to the spacing 60 as evident from Fig. 2 and lines 46-57 of col. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Goodell further discloses the inlet portion of the airflow opening is at a top dead center of the spindle (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Goodell further discloses the spacer includes an outboard end portion (unlabeled axially outboard end of 42 shown in Fig. 2), an inboard end portion (unlabeled axially inboard end of 42 shown in Fig. 2), and a side wall at 42 extending therebetween (Fig. 2); and wherein the spacer includes an opening 78 extending radially through the side wall of the spacer to direct air into the spacing between the spacer and the spindle (evident from Fig. 2 and lines 46-57 of col. 5 that air in hub cavity 34 is capable of being directed through opening 78 and into interior chamber 60).
Regarding claim 14, Goodell further discloses the spindle is a tapered spindle (evident from Fig. 2) and includes an inboard bearing journal (portion of spindle 24 that abuts bearing 33) for the inboard bearing and an outboard bearing journal (portion of spindle 24 that abuts bearing 32) for the outboard bearing, the inboard bearing journal having an outer diameter that is larger than an outer diameter of the outboard bearing journal (Fig. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodell in view of Braedt (US 2017/0015136 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Goodell is silent regarding the manner in which the inboard and outboard bearings are mounted.
Braedt, however, teaches the mounting of bearings with a clearance fit “which is amenable to assembly” (paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel end system of Goodell by utilizing a clearance fit for the mounting of the inboard and outboard bearings, such as taught by Braedt, as a well-known bearing fitting that would have a reasonable expectation of success in facilitating assembly and disassembly.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodell.
Regarding claim 13, Goodell fails to expressly disclose the opening comprises at least two openings extending radially through the side wall of the spacer. Instead, as noted above, Goodell discloses a single opening 78 extending radially through the side wall of the spacer (Fig. 2).
Nonetheless, to have modified the spacer of Goodell to comprise at least two openings would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a mere duplication of parts that would have a reasonable expectation of success in predictably facilitating airflow therethrough (See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7-11 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 prior art shows other examples of wheel end systems having venting or airflow arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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) J 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights