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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 18, 21-36, and 40-54 remain pending in the application. Claim 20 has been canceled, and Claims 19 and 37-39 were previously canceled. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome the each and every 112(b) rejection, and each and every prior art rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action dated 7 October 2025; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
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.
Claims 18, 21, 23-32, 34-36, 40-45, 47-48, and 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima et al. (US 2003/0169951) in view of Remmers et al. (US 4,141,603) and Rocchi et al. (US 9,394,946).
Regarding claim 18, Nishijima discloses a bearing system for a drive turbine of a rotary atomizer for the application of a paint (par. 2), the bearing system comprising
a rotatable turbine shaft (4) for receiving a bell cup (par. 102) which is used for spraying off the paint (par. 102),
a radial bearing (504) for rotatably supporting the turbine shaft (fig. 1), and
an axial bearing (505A) for axially supporting the turbine shaft (par. 98; fig. 14),
wherein the radial bearing comprises a foil bearing (par. 81) and the axial bearing comprises a foil bearing (par. 102),
and wherein the foil bearing comprises a cover foil (53) which is substantially cylindrically shaped and surrounds the turbine shaft (fig. 13), a spring foil (60/62) which is substantially cylindrically shaped and at least partially surrounds the cover foil (fig. 13), wherein the spring foil exerts a radially inwardly directed spring force on the cover foil (par. 23), and a bearing shell (51) externally encasing the spring foil (fig. 13).
Nishijima does not disclose that the axial bearing comprises a spiral groove bearing or wherein at least the cover foil and the bearing shell each have a plurality of radially through-going holes in order to guide air radially from an outside to an inside of the bearing system.
Remmers teaches a bearing system comprising a rotatable shaft (1) and a radial bearing (2) that comprises a spiral groove bearing (3/4/5, see fig. 1) and further wherein an axial bearing can comprise a spiral groove bearing (col. 4, ln. 13-14; fig. 9).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known that a foil bearing and spiral groove bearing are functional equivalents for serving as radial bearings and axial bearings for supporting a rotatable shaft. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the spiral groove bearing taught by Remmers for foil bearing taught by Nishijima as the axial bearing because both elements were known equivalents for serving in the applications of an axial bearing and/or a radial bearing for supporting a rotatable shaft. This substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of providing an axial bearing and/or a radial bearing for supporting a rotatable shaft.
Rocchi teaches a foil bearing (1, see col. 1, ln. 4-5) comprising a spring foil (9), a cover foil (5), and a bearing shell (4), and wherein the cover foil and the bearing shell each have a plurality of radially through-going holes (13 and 11/12/14, respectively) in order to guide air radially from an outside to an inside of the bearing system (col. 4, ln. 53-58).
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 foil bearing of Nishijima such that the cover foil and the bearing shell each have a plurality of radially through-going holes in order to guide air radially from an outside to an inside of the bearing system, as taught by Rocchi, since this was known to provide a path for communicating the air and providing increased bearing capacity and improve the cooling of the bearing (Rocchi—col. 4, ln. 66 to col. 5, ln. 6).
Regarding claim 21, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 18, and further wherein the spring foil is a bump foil with protruding bumps in the spring foil (par. 23; fig. 13).
Regarding claim 23, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 18, and further wherein the cover foil is coated with a wear-reducing coating (par. 101, 116).
Regarding claim 24, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 18, and wherein the cover foil has two different radii distributed over the circumference (fig. 13).
Regarding claim 25, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 18, and further comprising: a compressed air turbine (568) with a rotatable turbine wheel for driving the turbine shaft (par. 6), a drive air supply (580/581) for supplying drive air for driving the turbine wheel, and an exhaust air guide (564/565) for discharging the expanded drive air from the compressed air turbine (fig. 16).
Regarding claim 26, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 25, and further wherein the drive air supply of the compressed air turbine branches off a part of the drive air and conducts it through the foil bearing (fig. 16).
Regarding claim 27, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 26, and further wherein the branched-off drive air is guided through the foil bearing radially from the outside to the inside (fig. 16 – through 564).
Regarding claim 28, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 25, and further wherein the exhaust air guide of the compressed air turbine guides the expanded drive air at least partially through the foil bearing (fig. 16).
Regarding claim 29, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 28, and further wherein the exhaust air guide guides the expanded drive air in the axial direction at least partially through the foil bearing (fig. 16 – through 563/565).
Regarding claim 30, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 26, and Rocchi further teaches wherein the spring foil has radially through-going holes (see annotated figure below) in order to guide the branched-off drive air radially from the outside to the inside.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the spring foil Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi such that the spring foil has radially through-going holes since this would further guide the air to the inside of the bearing system.
PNG
media_image1.png
618
904
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Rocchi for Claim 30
Regarding claim 31, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 25, and further wherein the radial bearing has at least two foil bearings (504A) axially one behind the other (fig. 14).
Regarding claim 32, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 31, and wherein a spacer ring (514) is arranged between the adjacent foil bearings (fig. 14).
Regarding claim 34, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 31, and further wherein the two foil bearings are arranged on the same side of the turbine wheel of the compressed air turbine (fig. 14).
Regarding claim 35, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 25, and further comprising at least one additional axial bearing (505A) for supporting the turbine shaft (par. 98; fig. 14).
Regarding claim 36, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 35, and further wherein the additional axial bearing having at least one foil bearings (par. 102), but not wherein the additional axial bearing having a spiral groove bearing.
Nevertheless, Remmers teaches that it is known that a foil bearing and spiral groove bearing are functional equivalents for serving as radial bearings and axial bearings for supporting a rotatable shaft, as explained in the rejection of claim 18. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted a spiral groove bearing for the foil bearing taught by Nishijima as the additional axial bearing because both elements were known equivalents for serving in the application of an axial bearing for supporting a rotatable shaft. This substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of providing an axial bearing for supporting a rotatable shaft.
Regarding claim 40, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 35, and further wherein the additional axial bearing comprises a foil bearing (par. 112 – “the foil bearing is employed for each of the radial and thrust bearings 504 and 505”).
Regarding claim 41, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 35, and further wherein the additional axial bearing comprises: a rotating disc (4a) which is torsionally rigidly connected to the turbine shaft and rotates with the turbine shaft during operation (fig. 14), and a first stationary disc (1a/3) which is arranged in a stationary manner in the bearing system (par. 96), the rotating disc and the first stationary disc adjoining one another in a substantially plane-parallel manner (fig. 14).
Regarding claim 42, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 41, and further wherein the additional axial bearing has a second stationary disc (1b) which is arranged in a fixed position in the bearing system (par. 96; fig. 11), the rotating disc and the second stationary disc adjoining one another in an essentially plane-parallel manner (fig. 11, 14), the first and second stationary discs are prestressed against one another in the axial direction by at least one elastic element (16, see par. 96).
Regarding claim 43, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 42, and further wherein a spacer (2) is arranged between the two stationary discs (fig. 10, 11), the spacer adjusting the axial distance between the two stationary discs (par. 111; fig. 11 – bearing surface “S” is able to be deflected due to the elastic member 2, which adjusts the distance between 1b and 3) in order to reduce the starting friction.
Regarding claim 44, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 41, and further wherein the rotating disc of the axial bearing is connected in a rotationally rigid manner to the turbine wheel of the compressed air turbine or is formed by the turbine wheel (fig. 11, 14) and wherein an axial foil bearing (505A) is arranged in the axial direction on both sides of the turbine wheel (fig. 14), but not wherein the axial bearings are a spiral axial bearing.
Remmers further teaches a bearing system comprising a rotatable shaft (1) and a radial bearing (2) that comprises a spiral groove bearing (3/4/5, see fig. 1) and further wherein an axial bearing can comprise a spiral groove bearing (col. 4, ln. 13-14; fig. 9).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known that a foil bearing and spiral groove bearing are functional equivalents for serving as axial bearings for supporting a rotatable shaft. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the spiral groove bearing taught by Remmers for foil bearing taught by Nishijima as the axial bearing because both elements were known equivalents for serving in the applications of an axial bearing for supporting a rotatable shaft. This substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of providing an axial bearing for supporting a rotatable shaft.
Regarding claim 45, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 18, and further wherein the bearing shell has an inner cross-section which is essentially constant in the axial direction (figs. 2A-2D), while the cover foil has an inner cross-section which tapers in the circumferential direction (fig. 13 – at the 12 o’clock position of 53 shown).
Regarding claim 47, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 18, and further wherein the bearing system generates frictional heat during operation at full load with a heating power of at least 50W in order to avoid condensation in the bearing system. This claim is interpreted to be a functional limitation, and requires only that the structure is capable of performing the function. It is noted that when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I. Additionally, it is noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 48, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 18, and further wherein the spring foil allows a certain radial spring travel (par. 94 – “displacement of the bearing foil”), while the spring foil has a certain bearing diameter (fig. 13), and wherein the amount of spring travel can be varied in order to optimize the distribution of the bearing gap during a loaded condition (par. 39, 94). But Nishijima does not specifically disclose wherein the ratio of the spring travel and the bearing diameter is smaller than 0.1.
Nishijima does, however, disclose that the amount of spring travel can be changed in order to realize an optimum distribution of the bearing gap in dependence on a loaded condition (par. 94), and changing the spring travel will further affect the ratio of the spring travel and the bearing diameter. Therefore, the ratio of the spring travel and the bearing diameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is to realize an optimum distribution of the bearing gap in dependence on a loaded condition. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim were disclosed in the prior art by Nishijima, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the spring travel disclosed by Nishijima such that the ratio of the spring travel and the bearing diameter is smaller than 0.1. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 52, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 18, and wherein the radial bearing comprises an aerostatic air bearing, in which supplied compressed air builds up an air cushion for the bearing (par. 6 - shaft and the turbine rotor are supported afloat by the effect of the pressure of the compressed air in a non-contact fashion relative to the housing).
Regarding claim 53, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 18, and wherein the radial bearing comprises an aerodynamic air bearing, in which an air cushion for the bearing is generated by the movement of the air bearing (par. 77).
Regarding claim 54, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi the bearing system described regarding claim 18, and further wherein the bearing system is part of a rotatory atomizer (par. 2).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi, and further in view of Silver (US 4,654,939).
Regarding claim 22, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 18, but not further wherein the spring foil is produced by etching.
Silver teaches a foil bearing comprising a spring foil produced by etching (col. 5, ln. 8-11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used etching to produce the spring foil of the foil bearing of Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi, as taught by Silver, since this was known to be a relatively cheap and accurate process to use to form the spring foil (Silver—col. 6, ln. 16-21).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi, and further in view of Brett et al. (US 2007/0257131).
Regarding claim 33, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 31, but not further wherein the two foil bearings are arranged on different sides of the turbine wheel of the compressed air turbine.
Brett teaches a bearing system (figs. 13, 14) comprising two radial bearings (103a/103a’) axially one behind the other (fig. 14) for rotatably supporting a shaft (par. 132) and a turbine wheel (107), wherein the two radial bearings are arranged on different sides of the turbine wheel (fig. 14; par. 132).
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 bearing system of Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi such that the two foil bearings are arranged on different sides of the turbine wheel of the compressed air turbine, as taught by Brett, since this was known to provide a “stiff” arrangement able to resist relatively high turning moments acting on the shaft (Brett—par. 132).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi, and further in view of Agrawal et al. (US 2009/0087299).
Regarding claim 46, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 18, but not further wherein the bearing shell and the cover film each have an inner cross section which tapers in the axial direction towards the bell cup.
Agrawal teaches a foil bearing comprising a cover film (90), a spring foil (92), and a bearing shell (88), and wherein the bearing shell and the cover film each have an inner cross section which tapers in the axial direction (figs. 7A, 7B).
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 foil bearing of Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi such that the bearing shell and the cover film each have an inner cross section which tapers in the axial direction towards the bell cup, as taught by Agrawal, since this was known to form a fluid wedge on which the shaft floats during operation that accommodates both axial and radial load with low power loss (Agrawal—par. 74).
Claims 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi, and further in view of Uesugi et al. (US 2004/0008913).
Regarding claim 49, Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 18, but not further wherein the bearing system has a labyrinth seal for sealing the turbine shaft, the labyrinth seal surrounds the turbine shaft.
Uesugi teaches a bearing system (par. 1, 21; fig. 1) with a labyrinth seal (31) for sealing a shaft (2, see par. 34), the labyrinth seal surrounds the shaft (fig. 1).
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 bearing system of Nishijima in view of Remmers and Rocchi to have a labyrinth seal for sealing the turbine shaft, the labyrinth seal surrounds the turbine shaft, as taught by Uesugi, since this was known to prevent intrusion of dust into the bearing (Uesugi—par. 15).
Regarding claim 50, Nishijima in view of Remmers, Rocchi, and Uesugi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 49, and further wherein the labyrinth seal is arranged in the axial direction between the bell cup and the radial bearing (see Nishijima, fig. 16 and Uesugi, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 51, Nishijima in view of Remmers, Rocchi, and Uesugi discloses the bearing system described regarding claim 49, and further wherein the labyrinth seal has an annular structure (Uesugi, fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752