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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 19, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, each resilient unit comprising a damping element must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. See rejection under 35 USC 112(a) below.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 21, the “wherein the resilient units” recitation should be the start of a new line like “wherein:” in line 13 of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, as amended the claim now defines resilient units that are configured to enable resilient displacement and also each comprise a damping element which is presenting a combination that is new matter. First, the claim is stating that the assembly is both resilient and dampens, however based on page 6 the dampening feature is an alternative preferred embodiment thus there is no support for the resilient units preforming both the claimed functions simultaneously. While it is understood that something that is resilient would ultimately provide a dampening function this is not what the claim is stating. By reciting “each comprising a damping element” there is a requirement for a separate or integrated additional element to be present, this is not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure only supports one block of material between the housing and the outer ring, this is said to be resilient, this could also be said to be a dampening member but it is not resilient while also “comprising” a damping element (it is resilient and can function as a dampening element, which all springs or elastic blocks can do, it does not comprise an additional element). Ultimately, the recitation of the claim is also defining the element as resilient and dampening at the same time, this is also not supported by the disclosure which defines these as different embodiments, thus based on the original disclosure Applicant appears to have consider “resilient” as being structurally different from a “dampening” embodiment, the claim is now stating that the units perform both functions which is new matter within the context of the disclosure.
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, 4-5 and 7-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, viewing the claim in a context that the last clause is defining a function of the resilient unit which would be more consistent with the disclosure it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. Specifically it is unclear what is structurally required for the element/unit to configure the assembly to enable “the rotator shaft to rotate at speeds of more than 110,000 rpm.” What structure must the element/unit have in order to “enable” for this? The elastic unit while supporting the shaft through the bearing does not directly support rotation of the shaft, this is done via the bearing. The claim is linking the overall function of the assembly only to a dampening characteristic which is unclear because the function of rotational speed is linked to all factors of a bearing assembly, because of this it is unclear how this recitation is structurally limiting the bearing assembly or the dampening element and for the purpose of examination will be treated as a functional recitation consistent with what was stated in the advisory action mailed November 25, 2025.
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, as best understood, 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 resilient units: 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 each comprise a damping element (this recitation is being treated as if it is stating a function not an additional structural element as the recitation of a different structural element is inconsistent with the disclosure, see the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) above) 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.
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).
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 February 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Relative to the prior art Applicant argues against the combination of Thomas and Schard Applicant by stating that there is a long felt need for a highly reliable extreme rotation speed bearing, however the question is not what the need is but rather if what Applicant structurally defines as the invention in the claims is new, novel or inventive. As will be addressed below the claim does not recite any new, novel or inventive structure. With regards to a long felt need a proper showing requires objective evidence that the problem existed in the art for a long period of time without solution which is not established in this case, rather what is presented is Applicant’s opinion/claim, not objective evidence, see MPEP 716.04.
In an attempt to establish the long felt need Applicant states “the claimed solution achieves this through a specific resilient mount…” however in this case the claims does not recite any specific structure of the resilient mount. What the claims are reciting are the overall configuration that includes a resilient unit, no specific structure of the resilient unit is recited in independent claim 1.
Applicant further states that the applied references solve entirely different problems and points to the use of each bearing unit of the prior art. Again the use of the prior art does not mean it does not structurally anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention. Ultimately the claim as presented does not define any specific structure that allows for the rotation speeds recited in the claim to occur, while Applicant wishes for this to be limiting as currently stated this is functioning as an intended use recitation that is not structurally limiting the claim. Thus, all the arguments and statements regarding different fields of use, different purposes etc. are not persuasive arguments. What structure in the claim is not found in the prior art of record?
Applicant also represents the argument that Thomas includes a flange and that the use of the flange teaches away from the resilient feature of the block allowing for axial movement. However, as previously stated, the block is rubber in Thomas the use of a flange does not prevent elastic deformation of the block. Applicant has not addressed this position in the remarks. How does the presence of the flange in Thomas prevent the block for elastically deforming? In addition, the previous version of the claim had language that was attempting to exclude the use of the flange in Thomas, these recitations have been removed from the claim to overcome the previous issues under 35 USC 112, thus the claim itself no longer excludes or attempts to exclude the presence of the flange in Thomas.
In this case the prior art of record teaches that Applicant is not the first to use elastic mounting blocks on two distinct bearings placed on axially opposite ends of a housing. This is shown by Thomas. The elastic blocks in Thomas, as a result of being rubber, allow for yielding and dampening functions to occur. Applicant’s position that the disclosure of Thomas (and Schard) does not occur at the claimed speed is unpersuasive since no specific structure is recited that allows for this particular speed to be achieved thus any recitation regarding the operational speed is an intended use or functional recitation not linked to any specific structure, while Applicant attempts to make this link in the last clause “configured to” language does not recite any specific structure. Schard is relied upon for the teaching of previously known bearing features only, the arguments regarding the elastic blocks, sealing and lubricant features of Schard do not relate to what is actual being taught by the reference in the current rejection under 35 USC 103. Because of this all of the structural features positively and explicitly recited by the claim are rendered obvious by the combination and thus the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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