DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1 and 4-10 have been presented for examination.
Claims 2-3 have been cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made that this application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/081259 filed 03/16/2022.
Acknowledgment is further made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to CHINA 202111041792.3 filed 09/07/2021.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
i) Following Applicants amendments and arguments, particularly with respect to the practical application and technological improvement on page 10 of their remarks, the previously presented 101 rejection is WITHDRAWN.
ii) Following Applicants amendments and arguments the previously presented 112 rejection is WITHDRAWN. However, in view of Applicants amendments an additional 112 rejection is presented below. Examiner notes that a voicemail message was left with Applicants representative to resolve this issue but no response was received.
iii) Following Applicants amendments and arguments the previously presented prior art rejection is WITHDRAWN.
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.
5. Claims 1 and 4-10 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.
i) Claim 1 recites “heavy-load” The term “heavy-load” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavy-load” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner notes that this term was previously recited, rejected by the Examiner, and amended yet the term was re-added in the amendments. This rejection applies to all other instances of the term in the claims. As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite.
ii) Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ball" in the “establishing an equation…” limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites multiple balls prior to this recitation. As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
All claims dependent upon a rejected base claim are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1 and 4-10 are allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented simulation method for dynamic contact characteristics of a first ball bearing in a liquid rocket engine, comprising the following steps:
acquiring physical structural parameters of a ball bearing of the liquid rocket engine, wherein the physical structural parameters at least comprise an inner diameter and an outer diameter of the ball bearing;
establishing a second ball bearing model of a liquid rocket engine according to a normal contact stress of a ball bearing, and performing iterative computation on the second ball bearing model of the liquid rocket engine to obtain static contact characteristics of the second ball bearing;
establishing a first ball bearing model of the liquid rocket engine with considering influences from a centrifugal force and a gyroscopic moment of the ball bearing in rotation;
taking computed values for the static contact characteristics of the second ball bearing as initial values, substituting the initial values into the first ball bearing model, and performing iterative operation through a dual-population co-evolutionary particle swarm optimization (CPSO) algorithm to obtain dynamic contact characteristics of each of balls in the ball bearing, wherein the dynamic contact characteristics comprise a contact angle between the ball and an inner ring, and a contact angle between the ball and an outer ring; and
outputting the obtained dynamic contact characteristics of each of balls in the ball bearing to guide structural design, so as to reduce bearing failure arising from slip;
before the establishing a second ball bearing model of a liquid rocket engine according to a normal contact stress of a ball bearing, further comprising:
establishing an equation of a normal contact problem between the ball and a raceway; and
simplifying the equation of the normal contact problem with a linear least-squares regression method to obtain the normal contact stress of a heavy-load ball bearing; and
after simplified with the linear least-squares regression method, the equation of the normal contact problem is expressed as:
PNG
media_image1.png
618
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The closest prior art of record includes:
Wu, Jiqiang, et al. "Investigation on the angular contact ball bearings under low speed and heavy load with coupled mixed lubrication and quasi‐dynamic analysis." Lubrication Science 32.3 (2020): 108-120.
Li, Te, et al. "Research development of preload technology on angular contact ball bearing of high speed spindle: a review." International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing 21.6 (2020): 1163-1185.
Li, Jianhua, et al. "Modeling and analysis of the composite stiffness for angular contact ball bearings." Shock and Vibration 2020.1 (2020): 8832750.
However, the closest prior art of record does not explicitly teach or render obvious the limitations above,
particularly in combination with the other limitations within the claims. The dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as their respective independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 4-10 are rejected.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu, Jiqiang, et al. "Investigation on the angular contact ball bearings under low speed and heavy load with coupled mixed lubrication and quasi‐dynamic analysis." Lubrication Science 32.3 (2020): 108-120.
Li, Te, et al. "Research development of preload technology on angular contact ball bearing of high speed spindle: a review." International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing 21.6 (2020): 1163-1185.
Li, Jianhua, et al. "Modeling and analysis of the composite stiffness for angular contact ball bearings." Shock and Vibration 2020.1 (2020): 8832750.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
