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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 23, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, USP 3,301,612, in view of Schard, USP 4,541,740.
Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses a shaft bearing for mounting a spinning rotor of a rotor spinning machine (intended use), comprising a double-row rolling-element bearing comprising two rows (left and right bearing assemblies in figure 1) of rolling members (the double-row bearing element is in reference to two separate spaced apart bearings in the assembly as illustrated in figure 1 of the instant application, this is the same arrangement as figure 1 of Thomas), which are configured: on a radially inner side, to roll, on two inner raceways spaced apart from one another on a rotor shaft (13, see figure 1), and on a radially outer side, to roll on outer raceways (raceways of outer rings at 17) of two separate outer rings (two separate spaced apart outer rings are used, just like in the instant application) that are spaced apart from one another in a longitudinal axis direction of the rotor shaft (13); bearing members (14); and wherein the outer rings are borne in a shaft bearing housing (10) in a resiliently movable manner (via 14, this is a rubber member that provides the same function as 14a/14b of the instant application) by means of the bearing members (14) supported against the outer rings (at 17) and the shaft bearing housing (10), and the bearing members (14) each comprise an inner surface facing the outer rings (surface contacting the outer rings) and an outer surface facing the shaft bearing housing (outer surface contacting 10), and the bearing members (14) each comprise a resilient unit (14 are resilient units just like in the instant application) disposed radially between an outer surface of a respective one of the outer rings and an inner surface of the shaft bearing housing (see figure 1), wherein the bearing members (14) are separated from one another and spaced apart from one another when viewed in a longitudinal axis direction of the rotor shaft (space apart along shaft 13, see figure 1), the resilient units (14) are formed by a damping element (each unit “forms” a damping element) and are configured to enable the outer rings to be resiliently displaceable relative to the shaft bearing housing in axial, radial and circumferential directions (as the material of resilient member 14 is rubber, and thus elastic, the outer ring can shaft in the axial, radial and circumferential direction based on the elasticity of the mount, while the degree of movement will vary depending on the specifics of the rubber the outer rings would still be resiliently displaceable, the claim does not set forth any specific structure that allows for this and thus this ability can be contributed directly to the material used, this appears to also be the case in the instant application), and the damping element is configured to dampen movement of the outer rings in the axial, radial and circumferential directions, decreasing resonance and enabling the rotor shaft to rotate at speeds of more than 110,000 rpm (this is defining the function of the bearing and/or how it is intended to be used which is not structurally limiting the invention, see Remarks below).
Thomas discloses that the bearings include inner rings and thus does not disclose that the rolling elements roll, without any inner ring, in raceways on the shaft. Thomas also does not disclose that cages are positioned between the rotor shaft and the outer rings that are configured to fix the rolling members in place relative to one another in a circumferential direction.
Schard teaches an alternate double row bearing assembly were, instead of separate inner elements, the rolling elements (3 and 4) roll in raceway grooves formed on the outer surface of the shaft (2) and the rolling elements are retained in cages (see annotated figure below) that are positioned between the shaft (2) and the outer ring.
PNG
media_image1.png
520
986
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Thomas and form the assembly so that the rolling elements roll in raceways that are formed directly on the outer surface of the shaft with cages to retain the spacing of the balls, as taught by Schard, since placing the raceways directly on the surface of the shaft provides the predictable result of reducing the overall number of components in the assembly which ultimately reduces material cost and overall weight. The modification can also be viewed as a substitution of one known raceway configuration (separate ring element) for another (raceway directly on the shaft), regardless of which known configuration is used the resulting product ultimately performs the same predictable function. Substituting one known raceway configuration for another known raceway configuration is not inventive. In addition adding a cage element is obvious and within the level of ordinary skill in the art as cages are common practice in the art for the predictable result of maintaining proper spacing between the rolling elements and preventing rolling elements from falling out. Using a known structural element common in bearings does not make the invention new, novel or inventive.
Thomas further discloses that the resilient/damping element is rubber and therefore does not disclose the element as one that comprises a plastics-containing material selected from the group consisting of an elastomer, a thermoset, and a thermoplastic.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to make the damping element out of any elastic material including rubber or plastics containing material, specifically elastomers, a thermoset or thermoplastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, Thomas discloses that the bearing members (14) are formed entirely from the resilient unit (in figure 1 all of 14 is the resilient unit).
Regarding claim 5, Thomas discloses that the outer rings are borne in the shaft bearing housing (10) by means of separate bearing members (14, one on each end), which are spaced apart from one another (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Thomas discloses that the double-row rolling-element bearing comprises a ball bearing and the rows of rolling members comprise rows of balls (figure 1 shows ball bearing arrangements).
Regarding claim 11, Thomas discloses that each resilient unit (14) comprises a spring element comprising a metal or non-metal material (the block of material is a spring element made of rubber and in changing to another known material, plastic or plastic containing material the elastic function would still be preserved).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, USP 3,301,612, in view of Schard, USP 4,541,740, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hofmann, DD 268747.
Regarding claim 12, Thomas in view of Schard, as applied above, disclose that a lubricant reservoir is arranged in the region between the outer rings.
Hofmann teaches a double row bearing assembly with spaced apart outer rings (10) with a lubricant reservoir (formed of 8, 9 and 16) arranged in the region between the outer rings.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Thomas in view of Schard and add a lubricant reservoir between the two outer rings, as taught by Hofmann, for the predictable result of a providing a means that both distributes and retains lubricant within the bearing assembly. Providing bearings with lubrication reservoirs and lubrication systems is not new novel or inventive.
Regarding claim 7, Thomas in view of Schard and Hofmann discloses that lubricant reservoir (8,9,16) has a foam member (16 of Hofmann is a porous body, the term “foam” is not limited to any particular material or type of foam and foam can be hard or playable material, thus the porous body can be considered a foam member under the broadest reasonable interpretation since the specification does not provide an explicit definition for the material) configured for storing the lubricant (within the porous).
Regarding claim 8, Thomas in view of Schard and Hofmann discloses that a reservoir support (9 of Hofmann) configured to separate the lubricant reservoir from the rotor shaft (12). In this case the “support” is not structurally defined, any part of the reservoir assembly, connected to or as a separate member, between the foam and the shaft can be considered a support.
Regarding claim 9, Thomas in view of Schard and Hofmann discloses that the shaft bearing housing (10 of Thomas or 7 of Hofmann) comprises a closable lubricant filling opening (the system taught by Hofmann includes a supply hole at 13) adjacent to the lubricant reservoir (8,9,16). The term “closable” is defining a capability of the opening not structure of the opening, any hole in a body like 13 in Hofmann is ultimately “closable” as the hole can be plugged or sealed by anything. This is the same structure of the hole 19 that is shown in the figure of the instant application, the hole of the system of Hofmann is “closable” in the same manner as the hole in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that Thomas does not teach separate bearing members. Applicant bases the on 14 being the “shaft bearing” and more specifically only one of the elements. However this argument, specifically Applicant’s own interpretation of the invention and how the reference is being applied is inconsistent with the instant application and the rejection. The claim requires a shaft bearing housing, this is element 10 in the instant application, then there are two bearings within this housing that are spaced part and this is 11a and 11b. Thomas as illustrated and applied above discloses this same configuration with the housing being 10 and then the two bearings be rolling bearing assemblies on the left and right of figure 1 just like in the instant application. Applicant may be attempting to argue that 10 in Thomas is a tube/roller however this does not preclude the element from being considered a housing just like 10 in the instant application can be a roller as there is no further disclosure or claim requirement regarding specific features of the housing and more specifically the housing relative some other larger device.
Applicant further states that Schard does not cure this deficiency however as Thomas is found not to be deficient in this regard the argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant then argues that Thomas’s alignment function is not the same as the dampening while referencing that the system of Thomas “allows for small degrees of alignment” and “deadens noise so that any noise developed due to vibrations…is not telegraphed”.
First the argument does not address the actual conclusion in the rejection that the recitation of the dampening characteristic is defining a function of the device which is not structurally limiting. What structure is different than that shown in Thomas or Thomas as modified by Schard is required? Thomas generally shows the same bearing/shaft configuration as that shown in figure 1 with minor differences which are addressed by Schard, Thomas further discloses that 14 is a rubber, rubber inherently provides dampening characteristics and is even suggested by Thomas by the second quotation. Ultimately the argument is that Thomas does not state this requirement of the claim but the argument fails to persuasively argue that the recitation regarding the dampening movement being a function nor does the argument point to what is structurally required to have this function that is not also shown in Thomas and thus the rejection is maintained.
This argument is similar to the previous argument presented by Applicant and the previous response does not appear to be fully addressed. As previously stated, the argument does not point to what Applicant believes that the rejection is structurally lacking that is recited in the claim and only points to the functional “configured to” language of the claim. The combination presented above renders obvious the claimed structure recited earlier in the claim, Applicant does not appear to be arguing that the combination does not render obvious the structure absent the argument that Thomas does not disclose spaced apart bearings which the reference clearly does, the configured to language is not clearly setting forth any additional structural distinction and is treated as functional language that would only be attributed to the structure previously recited and thus the structure as presented in the prior art rejection would also perform or be capable of preforming the claimed functions. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Applicant further uses this functional language to argue that the invention is not obvious because the prior art does not address this function, however the position is maintained that this functional recitation in the claim does not provide any structural distinct to the claim or over the prior art of record. If there is an additional structural modification needed to configure Applicant’s invention to do this then that structure should be recited in the claim otherwise the recitation is a non-limiting functional recitation. Again it is noted that the function is also only linked to the resilient/damping element while Applicant is arguing that the function is the result of the whole configuration and thus the argument is also inconsistent with the claim construction.
Applicant further states that the deadening noise function in Thomas is about preventing vibration transmission not dampening resonance however resonance is a type of vibration, thus any vibration dampening device would dampen resonance, at least to some degree.
In conclusion the claim does not explicitly recite a structural feature that would distinguish the instant application over the prior art of record and therefore the rejection is maintained.
It is further noted that Applicant has further amended the claims to add specific materials groups, these still remain obvious as addressed above, however additional documents have been provided, see citation of pertinent art below, that show like material(s) being used as dampening elements in bearing assemblies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO2016092114 and WO2010115602 disclose elastomer dampening elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES PILKINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-5052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7-3.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/JAMES PILKINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
