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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/06/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 7-8, and 10 have been amended, no claims have been withdrawn, no claims have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-10 are presently under consideration in this application.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an annular bearing component” in claims 1 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0002] discloses the present invention generally relates to the heating of
annular bearing components. An annular bearing component relates to a bearing provided with rolling elements, typically balls or rollers, arranged between an inner bearing ring and an outer bearing ring. An annular bearing component can also relate to a plain bearing without rolling elements. An annular bearing component can further relate to a single ring, for example an inner bearing ring or an outer bearing ring. In particular, the invention concerns heating annular bearing components with an induction heater.
Paragraph [0004] discloses a bearing induction heater heats the annular bearing component until a desired measured temperature of the annular bearing component is reached or until a predefine heating time is reached.
Paragraph [0012] discloses a heater body comprising an induction heater, a top surface to place an annular bearing component, and an inductor comprising two rods protruding outwardly with respect to the top surface.
Paragraph [0030] discloses the heater body 2 also comprises an inductor 12 in order to generate the heating with the induction heater in an annular bearing component when the annular bearing component is placed around a portion of the inductor 12. The inductor 12 comprises two rods 14 protruding outwardly from the top surface 6. The two rods 14 are parallel to each other and orthogonal to the top surface 6. The inductor 12 may be realized in electrical steel.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessey (bessey_bearing-heaters_induction.pdf of annotated embodiment figure 1 below) in view of Bessey (bessey_bearing-heaters_portable-induction.pdf of annotated embodiment figure 2 below) and Meisner et al. (US 5,011,013).
Regarding claim 1, Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 discloses a carry box configured for use with an integrated induction heater (i.e. an induction bearing heater, see annotated figure 1 below) and further configured for use with an annular bearing component (10, see annotated figure 2 below), the carry box comprising:
a heater body (1, see annotated fig. 1 below) configured to secure an induction heater therein (see annotated figure 1 below), a top surface (3, see annotated figure 1 below) configured to receive the annular bearing component (10, see annotated figure 2 below), and
an inductor comprising two rods (2, see annotated figure 1 below) protruding outwardly with respect to the top surface (3, see annotated figure 1 below), and
a yoke (4, i.e. also called a crossbar, see annotated figure 1 below) intended to be stored into the pocket and intended to be placed on the two rods in use (see annotated figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 discloses a top box (see annotated figure 2 below, i.e. the lid 12 and the base/bottom 14) comprising a bottom tray (14, see annotated figure 2 below) and a closing lid (12, see annotated figure 2 below) removably secured to the bottom tray (14, see annotated figure 2 below), the bottom tray (14, see annotated figure 2 below) being removably attached to the heater body (1, see annotated fig. 1 below) and being destined to cover the top surface (3, see annotated figure 1 below) of the heater body in the attached position, and the bottom tray (14, see annotated figure 2 below) being provided with at least one pocket (11, see annotated figure 2 below), the pocket being closed by the closing lid (12, see annotated figure 2 below),
PNG
media_image2.png
594
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 in view of Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein the top box is completely detachable and re-attachable from the heater body.
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of an induction heater. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 and Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 before him or her, to modify the heater body of Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 to include such tray/storage/base of Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 because it provides a means to quickly access different components and simply store away the device after use. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a portable induction heater throughout facility (see page 1).
Furthermore, Meisner teaches wherein the top box (6, i.e. called a base tray and nesting trays) is completely detachable (see figures, 1, 3A, 4, 5A) and re-attachable (see figures 1) from the heater body (4, i.e. called the base or bottom compartment) (col. 3, lines 55-col. 4, lines 2).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the problem-solving area of a carry box. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bessey’s embodiments and Meisner before him or her, to include such a carry box of Meisner because a portable storage container for tools and the like, adapted to house a removable, hand-holdable tray assembly, which can be easily transported to a construction site. In addition, a latching mechanism is provided which effectively secures the components of the apparatus together in a closed configuration. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides which effectively secures the components of the apparatus together in a closed configuration (col. 2, lines 18-20).
With respect to claim 2, Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 in view of Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 and Meisner discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 further discloses wherein the bottom tray (14, see annotated figure 2 above) comprises two through-openings (not labeled) intended to let the rods (16) pass through the bottom tray (14) when the bottom tray is attached to the heater body (not labeled).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 and Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 and Meisner before him or her, to include such openings of Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 because it provides a means to quickly setup the device. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a portable induction heater throughout facility (see page 1).
With respect to claim 3, Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 in view of Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 and Meisner discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 further discloses an additional yoke (5, see annotated figure 1 above) configured to be placed on the two rods (2, see annotated figure 1 above) in use.
Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 discloses wherein the bottom tray (14, see annotated figure 2 above) comprises an additional pocket (see annotated figure 2 above) to store the additional yoke (13, see annotated figure 2 above).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 and Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 and Meisner before him or her, to include such an additional pocket of Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 because it provides a means to quickly store components in the device. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a portable induction heater throughout facility (see page 1).
With respect to claim 4, Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 in view of Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 and Meisner discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 does not discloses wherein the bottom tray (14, see annotated figure 2 above) comprises a gloves pocket inside which are stored gloves, and a temperature probe pocket inside which is stored a temperature probe.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 and Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 and Meisner before him or her, to include such additional pockets in the bottom/base of Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 because it provides a means to quickly store components in the device. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a portable induction heater throughout facility (see page 1). Furthermore, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
With respect to claim 5, Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 in view of Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 and Meisner discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 further discloses two clips (15, see annotated figure 2 above) configured to attach the bottom tray (14, see annotated figure 2 above) to the heater body (1, see annotated fig. 1 above), the two clips (15, see annotated figure 2 above) being located on two opposite sides of the carry box (see annotated figure 2 above).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 and Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 and Meisner before him or her, to include such clips of Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 because it provides a means to quickly close the device. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a portable induction heater throughout facility (see page 1).
With respect to claim 6, Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 in view of Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 and Meisner discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 further discloses wherein the heater body (1, see annotated fig. 1 above) comprises a strap (not labeled, see annotated figure 2 above, i.e. a handle behind the lid 12) fixed at two opposite sides of the carry box (see annotated figure 2 above).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 and Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 and Meisner before him or her, to include such strap/handle of Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 because it provides a means to quickly carry the device. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a portable induction heater throughout facility (see page 1).
With respect to claims 7-8, Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 in view of Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 discloses wherein a material of the top box (see annotated figure 2 above, i.e. the lid 12 and the base/bottom 14) comprises foam and plastic; and wherein the closing lid is made with expanded polypropylene, and wherein the bottom tray is made of plastic (see page 1 of the bessey_bearing-heaters_portable-induction.pdf).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 and Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 and Meisner before him or her, to include such materials of Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 because it resists the vibration during operation and protecting the device from damaging it. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a means to protect the internal components.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessey (bessey_bearing-heaters_induction.pdf of annotated embodiment figure 1 below) in view of Bessey (bessey_bearing-heaters_portable-induction.pdf of annotated embodiment figure 2 below) and Meisner et al. (US 5,011,013) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bessey (bessey_bearing-heaters_portable-induction.pdf of annotated embodiment figure A below).
Regarding claims 9-10, Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 in view of Bessey’s embodiment figure 2 and Meisner discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, except for wherein the heater body further comprises a user interface area; and wherein the user interface area comprises a display and/or buttons to control a duration and/or a temperature of the heating of the annular bearing component.
PNG
media_image3.png
538
705
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Bessey’s embodiment figure A above teaches wherein the heater body (101, see annotated figure A above) further comprises a user interface area (100, see annotated figure A above); and wherein the user interface area (100, see annotated figure A above) comprises a display (see annotated figure A above) and/or buttons to control a duration and/or a temperature of the heating of an annular bearing component (see page 1 of bessey_bearing-heaters_portable-induction.pdf).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of an induction heater. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bessey’s embodiment figure 1 in view of Bessey’s embodiment figure 2, Meisner, and Bessey’s embodiment figure A before him or her, to include such user interface of Bessey’s embodiment figure A because it provides the operator to control the device easily. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows to operate the device quickly and efficiently.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have overcome Drawings objection and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections from previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 02/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under Bessey’s figures 1, 2, and A have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bessey’s figures 1, 2, A, and Meisner et al.
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 KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761