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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s petition for review of the restriction requirement of 01/12/2024 in regards to Groups I and II, claims 1-11, was granted on 07/10/2024. The restriction requirement between Groups I and II has been therefore between withdrawn.
Claims 12-13 are still considered to be withdrawn.
Further based on this decision the finality of the rejection of claims 1-2 in the correspondence mailed 05/04/2026 was improper and the final rejection mailed 05/04/2026 is withdrawn.
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 14-15 and 17-19 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.
Claim 14: In lines 4 and 5, the claim recites “the first retaining bridges” and “the second retaining bridges”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that the claim previously set forth “a first retaining bridge” and “a second retaining bridge”.
Claim 14: In lines 4 and 5, the claim recites “the first bridge” and “the second bridge”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that the claim previously set forth “a first retaining bridge” and “a second retaining bridge”.
Claim 15: In line 3, the claim recites “the axial end surface of the roller”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15: In line 6, the claim recites “the first bridge” and “the second bridge”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that the claim previously set forth “a first retaining bridge” and “a second retaining bridge”.
Claim 17: In line 2, the claim recites “the bottom wall”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18: In line 2, the claim recites “a pair of retaining bridges”. However, previously in the claim, claim 3, the claim set forth “a first retaining bridge” and “a second retaining bridge”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the pair of retaining bridges are new and different retaining bridges or the same retaining bridges set forth in claim 3.
Claim 18: In lines 3-4, the claim recites “a first retaining bridge” and “a second retaining bridge”. However, previously in the claim, claim 3, the claim set forth “a first retaining bridge” and “a second retaining bridge”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the newly set forth retaining bridges are new and different retaining bridges or the same retaining bridges set forth in claim 3.
Claim 19: In line 3, the claim recites “a plurality of the rollers”. However, previously in the claim, claim 1, the claim set forth “rollers”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the newly set forth rollers are new and different rollers or the same roller set forth in claim 1.
Claim 19: In line 19, the claim recites “a cylindrical side wall of each of the plurality of rollers”. However, previously in the claim, claim 3, the claim set forth “cylindrical side walls of the rollers”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the newly set forth side walls are new and different side wall or the same side walls set forth in claim 1.
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 1-2 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amador et al. (US 2019/02497179 A1).
Claim 1: Amador et al. discloses an installation device (60 of Figure 8) that includes a base ring (68 of Figure 8) having an axial centerline (x of Figure 8) and having recesses (spaces between 66 of Figure 8), the recesses being radially inwardly open and radially outwardly closed (as depicted in Figures 8-9 the recess open inwardly and include portions covered by the angled surfaces of 66 that are interpreted as being closed) wherein the recesses extend axially and are distributed circumferentially (as depicted in Figure 8), and wherein the base ring including the received rollers is configured to be pushed onto a shaft (the base ring is configured with an open ring that receives rollers, this open ring configuration allows the base ring to be pushed onto a shaft with rollers installed in the base ring).
The remainder of the limitations recited in the claim have been treated as merely the intended use the claimed apparatus. The apparatus of Amador et al. is capable of performing the recited intended use and therefore meets the limitations of the claim.
Claim 2: Amador et al. further discloses that the recesses each include a curved side wall (74A,7B of Figure 10, these walls define the recesses, paragraph [0045]-[0046] describes these walls as configured to mate with rollers or spherical balls and are therefore considered to be curved) configured to engage a portion of a curved side wall of the rollers and an axially facing bottom wall (82 of Figure 20, axially facing in that the face extends in the axial direction) configured to support an axial end surface of the rollers.
Claim 16: Amador et al. further discloses that the recesses are defined in party by a curved wall (74A,7B of Figure 10, these walls define the recesses, paragraph [0045]-[0046] describes these walls as configured to mate with rollers or spherical balls and are therefore considered to be curved) projecting from the base ring (as depicted in Figure 6).
Claim 17: Amador et al. further discloses that a bottom wall (78 or 72 of Figure 7) is bounded along one portion by the curved wall
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/06/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that the recesses of the installation device of Amador et al. do not open radially inwardly and are not closed radially outwardly. This is not convincing because as depicted in Figures 8 and 9 the recesses do open inwardly, and are at least in portion closed outwardly. The angled sidewalls of 66 close radially outwardly in order to close off a portion of the recesses in order to retain the rollers 88 within the installation device. Therefore, under the principle of broadest reasonably interpretation the apparatus of Amador et al. does provide an apparatus that meets the limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5704. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JASON L VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights