NON-FINAL 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10 February 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 2-18, 21, and 22 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, it is unclear if the phrase “at least one fastening element” in line 14 refers to the same fastener previously recited in line 10 of said claim, or to a different fastener. For purpose of examination, they are considered to refer to the same element. Similarly, it is unclear if “a stationary frame” in line 12 refers to the same stationary machine element previously recited in line 10 of said claim. For purpose of examination, they are considered to refer to the same element. Claims 2-18, 21, and 22 are rejected for the same reason due to their dependency upon said claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the ring element" in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blakley (U.S. Patent No. 6,517,246) in view of NZ 211825 (Marsh), and further in view of Bengtsson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,224,533, hereinafter Bengtsson).
Regarding claim 1, Blakley discloses a bearing member for supporting a rotatable axle (Fig. 1), comprising: a bearing housing (12, Fig. 1); at least one bearing (22, Fig. 1) inserted into the bearing housing; wherein the bearing is configured to receive a rotatable shaft (24, Fig. 1) extending through the bearing; a tilting member (flexible disc pack 14, Fig. 1) arranged around the bearing housing; wherein the tilting member comprises a pack of annular discs forming a through hole for receiving said bearing housing (col. 2 line 66 – col. 3 line 17); wherein each of the annular discs comprises a plurality of apertures 54 and/or 58 extending through each of the discs and arranged for receiving a fastener (18 and 20, Fig. 1) configured to attach the tilting member to said bearing housing 12 or a stationary machine element (“an assembly of three or more struts”, col. 2 lines 10-11); a member (support ring 16, Fig. 1), the bearing housing (12, Fig. 1) being mounted to a stationary frame (“an assembly of three or more struts”, col. 2 lines 10-11) via the member, the pack of annular discs being attached to the member (Fig. 1), and at least one fastening element (fastener 18 and/or 20, Fig. 1) extending through the tilting member and attaching the tilting member to the bearing housing (col. 3 lines 35-59; Fig. 4), but does not disclose wherein the tilting member further comprises a sleeve element provided in each of the apertures for holding the annular discs together as a stack; wherein the sleeve element includes a flange extending out on an upper surface of the pack of annular discs and a washer on an opposite side of the pack of annular discs; and wherein the member is elastic.
Marsh discloses analogous art related to flexible coupling for shafts, wherein the tilting member (flexible element/laminated disc-pack 30, Fig. 6) further comprises a sleeve element (bushings 44, Fig. 6) provided in each of the apertures for holding the annular discs (discs 43, Fig. 7) together as a stack (laminated disc-pack 30, Fig. 6) and arranged for receiving a fastener (screw 24, Fig. 6); and at least one fastening element (screw 24, Fig. 6) extending through the sleeve element, wherein the sleeve element includes a flange extending out on an upper surface of the pack of annular discs (“bushings 44 have a flanged end which abuts the flexible element”, page 10 lines 10-11, Fig. 6) and a washer on an opposite side of the pack of annular discs (“the washers are secured around the opposite end of the bushing”, page 10 lines 11-12, Fig. 6). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the bearing member of Blakley with the sleeve element taught by Marsh for the purpose of holding together the laminated disc-pack/tilting member (page 10 lines 8-16, Marsh).
The combination of Blakley and Marsh does not expressly disclose an elastic member, the bearing housing amounted to a stationary frame via an elastic member, the pack of annular discs being attached to the elastic member.
Bengtsson discloses analogous art related to a support device for a rotatable centrifuge rotor provided in a frame member by a bearing member (Fig. 1), comprising an elastic member (support element 7, Fig. 1 and 4), the bearing housing (6, Fig. 1) being mounted to a stationary frame (frame member 1, Fig. 1) via the elastic member. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the member of the bearing member of the combination of Blakley and Marsh to be elastic as taught by Bengtsson for the purpose of permitting radial as well as axial relative movements, and also oscillating or pivoting movements of the rotor shaft in relation to the frame member (col. 4 lines 17-67, Bengtsson).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson discloses wherein the pack of annular discs 14 comprises at least four annular discs (Fig. 1, Blakley).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson discloses wherein the annular discs are metal lamellas (col. 2 line 66 – col. 3 line 17; discs are constructed of an alloy material such as titanium, Blakley).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson discloses wherein the annular discs (discs 43, Fig. 7, Marsh) of the pack has the form of a closed polygon with a plurality of corners, and wherein said apertures (holes A and B, Fig. 7, Marsh) are arranged in said corners (see Fig. 7, Marsh shows disc 43 with a curvilinear polygon shape, same as the annular disc of the claimed invention as shown in Fig. 21 and 22).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson discloses wherein the annular discs (discs 43, Fig. 7, Marsh) have the form of an octagon (“[m]ost couplings of this type use a four, six, or eight bolt pattern, although ten and twelve are also used”, page 9 lines 1-13, the eight bolt pattern would result in the annular disc in having an octagonal shape, Marsh).
Regarding claim 6, the process by which the sheet metal is manufactured (by cold rolling), which recites no further structure, is noted. The patentability of a product or apparatus, however, does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, (CCPA 1969). MPEP 2113. As held in In re Thorpe, supra, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP 2113. the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson discloses all of the recited structure, wherein the annular discs are made from sheet metal (col. 2 line 66 – col. 3 line 17, Blakley), irrespective of the process by which the sheet metal are manufactured.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson discloses wherein the thickness of the individual annular discs in the pack of annular discs is less than 1 mm (col. 3 line 2-13, Blakley).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson discloses wherein the at least one fastening element is attaching the tilting member 14 to the bearing housing in every second aperture of the tilting member (col. 3 lines 35-59; Fig. 4, Blakley).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson discloses an apparatus (col. 1 lines 6-15, Blakley) comprising: a stationary machine element (“an assembly of three or more struts”, col. 2 lines 10-11, Blakley); and a rotatable shaft (24, Fig. 1, Blakley) supported by at least one of the bearing member according to claim 1, wherein the bearing housing (12, Fig. 1, Blakley) of the at least one bearing member is further attached to the stationary machine element via said tilting member (flexible disc pack 14, Fig. 1, Blakley).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson discloses at least one fastening element (fastener 18 and/or 20, Fig. 1, Blakley) attaching the tilting member (flexible disc pack 14, Fig. 3, Blakley) to the bearing housing (12, Fig. 3, Blakley) in every second aperture (58, Fig. 4, Blakley) of the tilting member and attaching the tilting member (flexible disc pack 14, Fig. 3, Blakley) to the stationary machine element (indirectly via support ring 16, Fig. 3, Blakley) in every second aperture (54, Fig. 4, Blakley) of the tilting member.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson discloses wherein the rotatable shaft is a vertical shaft 24 (Fig. 1, Blakley).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson does not specifically disclose wherein the pack of annular discs comprises at least eight annular discs. Blakley discloses that the at least one flexible disc pack is comprised of at a plurality of annular discs and shows five annular discs in a pack of annular discs in the figures (col. 3 lines 3-6; Fig. 1 and 2, Blakley). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. In this instance, without evidence to indicate why eight annular discs is critical, 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 pack of annular discs of the combination of Blakley and Marsh with at least eight annular discs, which would not produce any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson does not specifically disclose wherein the annular discs are steel lamellas; wherein the annular discs are made from cold rolled steel.
Regarding said claims, the process by which the steel is manufactured (by cold rolling), which recites no further structure, is noted. The patentability of a product or apparatus, however, does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, (CCPA 1969). MPEP 2113. As held in In re Thorpe, supra, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP 2113. In this case, the “cold rolled” limitation has not been given patentable weight because the patentability of a product does not depend on its method production.
Additionally, Blakley further teaches that that the annular discs are metal lamellas constructed of an alloy material (col. 3 lines 3-10). Steel is a well-known alloy material used in processing equipment, and it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the annular discs of the combination of Blakley and Marsh out of steel for its properties such as flexibility and durability.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson discloses the bearing member according to claim 1, wherein the tilting member (flexible disc pack 14, Fig. 1, Blakley) is attached to the ring element (support ring 16, Fig. 1, Blakley). Bengtsson further discloses wherein the elastic member (support element 7, Fig. 1 and 4) comprises an annular elastic element (dampening elements 14, Fig. 4; “dampening elements 14 may extend over a greater area and in the extreme case fill the whole space between each connecting portion 10”, col. 4 lines 63-67) and a ring element (annular inner mounting portion 8 and annular outer mounting portion 9, Fig. 2 and 4). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the ring element in the bearing member of the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson with an elastic element as taught by Bengtsson for the purpose of permitting radial as well as axial relative movements, and also oscillating or pivoting movements of the rotor shaft in relation to the frame member (col. 4 lines 17-67, Bengtsson).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blakley in view of Marsh, and further in view of Bengtsson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wada (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0292234, hereinafter Wada).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson does not disclose wherein the bearing is a roller bearing other than a spherical roller bearing.
Wada discloses wherein the bearing is a roller bearing other than a spherical roller bearing (para. [0042]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the bearing member of the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson with the type of bearing taught by Wada for the purpose of reducing friction loss (para. [0002], Wada).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson does not directly teach wherein the rotatable shaft is a horizontal shaft.
Wada discloses wherein the rotatable shaft is a horizontal shaft (Fig. 2, 5, 8 and 9). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apparatus of the combination of Blakley, Marsh, and Bengtsson with the horizontal rotatable shaft as taught by Wada for the purpose of using rolling bearings in a variety of machines and causing small friction loss (para [0002], Wada).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 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, because the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the at least one fastening element extends through the sleeve element of the tilting member to attach the tilting member directly to the ring element at first points of the pack of annular disks, and to attach the tilting member directly to the stationary frame at second points of the pack of annular disks, the first points and the second points being arranged in an alternating sequence circumferentially along the pack of annular disks.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUYI S LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-0496. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI 9:30AM - 2:30PM EST.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/Shuyi S. Liu/Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights