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 filed 6 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the claimed feature of ‘each of the bearing housings comprises a separate flow meter connected to the control unit’ as recited in claim 1 is not taught or made obvious by Koch, Van der Ham and Hadank, either taken alone or in combination” (page 10, Remarks), and argues the distinction between the metering valve of Van der Ham (para. [0018]) and a flow meter, and that Van der Ham’s Fig. 1 shows a single lubricant injector (12) serving a plurality of lubrication points (16) (page 9, Remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the metering valve of para. [0018] do not address the flow meter teaching of para. [0005]-[0006] relied upon by the examiner. Van der Ham teaches a flow meter “configured to produce a signal when a movement of a predetermined quantity of the lubricant is detected” and “a flow meter would confirm that a flow of lubricant into the bearing housing had occurred” (para. [0005], [0006], Van der Ham). Thus Van der Ham identifies the flow meter as a known device suited for the claimed function of “measuring an amount of grease injected into the bearing housing”, and thus provides motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a flow meter for this function.
Applicant argues that “[t]here is no disclosure of a flow meter connected to the control unit, and there is no disclosure of each of the bearing housings comprising a separate flow meter” (page 9, Remarks). However, the examiner notes that when the flow meter of Van der Ham is combined with the method of Koch as measuring the quantity of grease injected into the bearing housing, applying the same known measurement technique (a flow meter) to each of Koch’s bearing housings (bowl heads 27 and 30, each accommodating a respective bearing 100 and 108) would be obvious. It is well settled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04. In this case, 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 a second flow meter in the second bearing housing of Koch, and doing so would not produce any new or unexpected results. Such a modification also constitutes applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, which supports a conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), Example D.
Furthermore, since Van der Ham discloses that the flow meter produces a signal when a movement of a predetermined quantity of the lubricant is detected (para. [0006]), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a signal would be received by some controlling or monitoring structure. Van der Ham discloses a controller 36 connected to a sensor and lubrication injection components (para. [0017]-[0021], [0028]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the flow meter’s output signal to a controller as taught by Van der Ham, since doing so allows the detected information by the flow meter to be put to use, i.e., send confirmation to the controller that the quantity of lubricant has been delivered. The rejection over Koch, Van der Ham, and Hadank is therefore still deemed valid and is maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5 May 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the bearing housing temperature" in line 2. 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, 7-12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2003/0228966, hereinafter Koch) in view of Van der Ham et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0187122, hereinafter Van der Ham), and further in view of Hadank et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,381,874, hereinafter Hadank).
Regarding claim 1, Koch discloses a method of greasing a decanter centrifuge (10, Fig. 2A and 2B, para. [0067]), the decanter centrifuge comprising a rotating bowl (20, Fig. 2A and 2B) suspended between bearings (100 and 108, Fig. 2A and 2B), each bearing being located in a bearing housing (bearing housings are part of bowl head 27 and 30 that accommodate the bearings 100 and 108, Fig. 2A and 2B), the method comprising the steps of: operating the decanter centrifuge by rotating the bowl (para. [0005]), but does not disclose at least one bearing housing having a grease flow meter, the grease flow meter being connected to a control unit, the control unit defining a specific amount of grease to be injected at each greasing operation and a specific time interval between greasing operations, the method comprising the steps of: measuring an operating time since the last greasing operation in the control unit; and generating a greasing operation when the operating time of the decanter centrifuge is equal to or exceeds the specific time interval between greasing operations, the greasing operation including: generating a start signal in the control unit; measuring an amount of grease injected into the bearing housing by using the flow meter; and generating a stop signal in the control unit when the amount of grease injected into the bearing housing is equal to or exceeds the specific amount of grease to be injected at each greasing operation, wherein each of the bearing housing comprises a separate flow meter connected to the control unit.
Van der Ham discloses analogous art related to a method of operating a bearing lubrication system, where at least one bearing housing (bearing housing 24, Fig. 2) having a grease flow meter (para. [0005]), the grease flow meter being connected to a control unit (controller 36, Fig. 1, para. [0028]; “[t]he flow meter can be configured to produce a signal when a movement of a predetermined quantity of the lubricant is detected”, para. [0005]), the control unit defining a specific amount of grease (a predetermined quantity of the lubricant, moves through a lubrication supply line into a bearing housing and into contact with the wear surfaces of the bearing, para. [0003] and [0005]) to be injected at each greasing operation, the greasing operation including: generating a start signal in the control unit (initiating the lubrication operation by actuating lubrication components inherently involves generating a start signal, para. [0003], [0020]); measuring an amount of grease injected into the bearing housing by using the flow meter; and generating a stop signal in the control unit when the amount of grease injected into the bearing housing is equal to or exceeds the specific amount of grease to be injected at each greasing operation (“the flow meter can be configured to produce a signal when a movement of a predetermined quantity of the lubricant is detected”, para. [0005]); wherein each of the bearing housings comprises a separate flow meter connected to the control unit (flow meter produces a signal when a movement of a predetermined quantity of the lubricant is detected, para. [0005]; a flow meter would confirm that a flow of lubricant into the bearing housing had occurred, para. [0006]; controller 36 is connected to a sensor and lubrication injection components, para. [0028]). 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 method of Koch with the flow meter of Van der Ham and connect it to the control unit as taught by Van der Ham for the purpose of detecting a predetermined quantity of lubricant has been delivered to the bearing housing during a lubrication operation (para. [0005], Van der Ham). It would have been further obvious to provide each of Koch’s plurality of bearing housings (bowl heads 27 and 30, each accommodating a respective bearing 100 and 108) with its own flow meter connected to the control unit. It is well settled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04. In this case, 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 a second flow meter in the second bearing housing of Koch, and doing so would not produce any new or unexpected results.
The combination of Koch and Van der Ham does not disclose the control unit defining a specific time interval between greasing operations; measuring an operating time since the last greasing operation in the control unit; and generating a greasing operation when the operating time of the decanter centrifuge is equal to or exceeds the specific time interval between greasing operations.
Hadank discloses analogous art related to automatic lubrication control, the control unit defining a specific time interval between greasing operations; measuring an operating time since the last greasing operation in the control unit; and generating a greasing operation when the operating time of the decanter centrifuge is equal to or exceeds the specific time interval between greasing operations (“a device for calculating a time interval being dependent on a previous lubrication event and the operational parameter” and “producing a lubrication signal in response to the time interval reaching a predetermined interval constant”, Abstract). 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 method of combined Koch and Van der Ham with the control unit configuration taught by Hadank for the purpose of providing a flexible and efficient control system for automatically lubricating critical areas of work machines (col. 2 lines 21-26, Hadank).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Koch, Van der Ham, and Hadank discloses the method according to claim 1. Van der Ham further disclose where in the bearing housing comprises a temperature sensor (34, Fig. 1, Van der Ham) and measuring a bearing housing temperature by using the temperature sensor (para. [0021], Van der Ham). 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 method of modified Koch with the temperature sensor of Van der Ham for the purpose of better detect failed lubrication operations and/or confirm successful lubrication operations (para. [0021], Van der Ham).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Koch, Van der Ham, and Hadank teaches calculating a time interval being dependent on a previous lubrication event and an operational parameter (Abstract, Hadank) and that if the bearing has been inadequately lubricated, on the other hand, a new dose of grease can cause a transient decrease in temperature when the cool grease reaches a hotter-than-normal bearing (para. [0022], Van der Ham, hotter than normal bearing temperature corresponds to the bearing housing temperature increases beyond a first specific temperature), but does not specifically disclose setting the specific time interval between greasing operations to less or equal to the operating time since the last greasing operation when between greasing operations the bearing housing temperature increases beyond a first specific temperature, the first temperature being indicative for an under-greasing of the bearing housing. However, 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 time interval lubrication control of Hadank such that the calculated time interval between greasing operations is adjusted based on the bearing temperature being hotter than normal (or increases beyond a first specific temperature), as taught by Van der Ham. Setting the specific time interval between greasing operations to less or equal to the operating time since the last greasing operation when between greasing operations the bearing housing temperature increases beyond a first specific temperature, i.e., decreasing the time interval, would initiate a greasing operation sooner, which is a predictable feedback loop response when the bearing temperature indicates under-greasing. Such a combination merely applies known sensor data feedback (Van der Ham) to a known lubrication interval control (Hadank) to achieve the predictable result of improved bearing lubrication, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 7, 18, and 19, the combination of Koch, Van der Ham, and Hadank discloses the method according to claims 1, 2 and 3. Van der Ham further discloses wherein the decanter centrifuge comprises a grease pump (lubrication pump 10, Fig. 1, Van der Ham) connected to the bearing housing (corresponding to bearing 18, Fig. 1; “a lubrication operation by moving lubricant toward an interior of a housing of a bearing”, Abstract, Van der Ham), whereby the start signal causes the pump to start and the stop signal causes the pump to stop (controller 36 actuates the pump to start and stop, para. [0020], Van der Ham). 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 method of modified Koch with the grease pump taught by Van der Ham for the purpose of providing lubricant to lubricant injectors (para. 0018), Van der Ham).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Koch, Van der Ham, and Hadank discloses wherein the bearing housing (bearing housings are part of bowl head 27 and 30 that accommodate the bearings 100 and 108, Fig. 2A and 2B, Koch; corresponding to bearing 18, Fig. 1, Van der Ham) comprises a grease inlet (grease channels 85, 86, 87, Fig. 2B, Koch; lubrication point 16, Fig. 1, Van der Ham) and the decanter centrifuge comprising a human-machine interface (“display screen”, para. [0034], Van der Ham; display 28, Hadank) for communicating the start signal and the stop signal to a user.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Koch, Van der Ham, and Hadank discloses the lubrication of bearings and shafts of a centrifuge, where the bearings adjacent the shaft facilitate movement of the shaft (para. [0067], Koch), but does not specifically disclose wherein the bowl is rotating during the greasing operation. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the greasing operation while the bowl is rotating, as this represents a routine operational choice consistent with the teachings of Koch (para. [0067], Koch).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Koch, Van der Ham, and Hadank discloses wherein the specific amount of grease to be injected at each greasing operation and the specific time interval between greasing operations are based on the size and the operational pattern of the decanter centrifuge (main module 24 receives input from pressure sensor and one or more sensors associated with an operational parameter, such as machine speedometer for larger machines or implement controllers for smaller machines, col. 3 lines 1-40, Hadank; lubrication control in response to bearing temperature behavior, para. [0022], Van der Ham).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Koch, Van der Ham, and Hadank discloses the method of claim 1. Van der Ham further discloses a computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (para. [0038]-[0039], Van der Ham). 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 method of modified Koch with the computer program of Van der Ham for the purpose of performing the method of bearing lubrication (para. [0038], Van der Ham).
Regarding claim 14, Koch discloses a control unit of a decanter centrifuge (“control apparatus”, para. [0080]), the decanter centrifuge (Fig. 2A and 2B) comprising a rotatable bowl (20, Fig. 2A and 2B) suspended between bearings (100 and 108, Fig. 2A and 2B), each bearing located in a bearing housing (bearing housings are part of bowl head 27 and 30 that accommodate the bearings 100 and 108, Fig. 2A and 2B), but does not disclose a control unit for controlling a greasing operation, at least one bearing housing having a grease flow meter, the grease flow meter being connected to the control unit, the control unit defining a specific amount of grease to be injected at each greasing operation and a specific time interval between grease operations, the control unit being adapted for measuring an operating time of the decanter centrifuge since the last greasing operation and generating a greasing operation when the operating time of the decanter centrifuge is equal to or exceeds the specific time interval between greasing operations, the greasing operation comprising: generating a start signal in the control unit; measuring an amount of grease injected into the bearing housing by using the flow meter; and generating a stop signal in the control unit when the amount of grease injected into the bearing housing is equal to or exceeds the specific amount of grease to be injected at each greasing operation; wherein each of the bearing housings comprises a separate flow meter connected to the control unit.
Van der Ham discloses analogous art related to a bearing lubrication system, where at least one bearing housing (bearing housing 24, Fig. 2) having a grease flow meter (para. [0005]), the grease flow meter being connected to a control unit (controller 36, Fig. 1) (using a flow meter to detect lubricant flow and provide signal to a controller, para. [0005] and [0028]), the control unit defining a specific amount of grease (a predetermined quantity of the lubricant, moves through a lubrication supply line into a bearing hosing and into contact with the wear surfaces of the bearing, para. [0003] and [0005]) to be injected at each greasing operation, the greasing operation including: generating a start signal in the control unit (“a lubrication operation may comprise the opening of a valve in one of the lubricant injectors 12 or an increase in a pressure that, under normal circumstances, would move the lubricant toward the interior 32 of one of the bearings 18”; initiating the lubrication operation by actuating lubrication components inherently involves generating a start signal, para. [0020]); measuring an amount of grease injected into the bearing housing by using the flow meter; and generating a stop signal in the control unit when the amount of grease injected into the bearing housing is equal to or exceeds the specific amount of grease to be injected at each greasing operation (“the flow meter can be configured to produce a signal when a movement of a predetermined quantity of the lubricant is detected”, para. [0005]), wherein each of the bearing housings comprises a separate flow meter connected to the control unit (flow meter produces a signal when a movement of a predetermined quantity of the lubricant is detected, para. [0005]; a flow meter would confirm that a flow of lubricant into the bearing housing had occurred, para. [0006]; controller 36 is connected to a sensor and lubrication injection components, para. [0028]). 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 control unit of Koch with the flow meter of Van der Ham and connect it to the control unit as taught by Van der Ham for the purpose of detecting a predetermined quantity of lubricant has been delivered to the bearing housing during a lubrication operation (para. [0005], Van der Ham). It would have been further obvious to provide each of Koch’s plurality of bearing housings (bowl heads 27 and 30, each accommodating a respective bearing 100 and 108) with its own flow meter connected to the control unit. It is well settled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04. In this case, 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 a second flow meter in the second bearing housing of Koch, and doing so would not produce any new or unexpected results.
The combination of Koch and Van der Ham does not disclose the control unit defining a specific time interval between greasing operations; measuring an operating time since the last greasing operation in the control unit; and generating a greasing operation when the operating time of the decanter centrifuge is equal to or exceeds the specific time interval between greasing operations.
Hadank discloses analogous art related to automatic lubrication control, the control unit defining a specific time interval between greasing operations; measuring an operating time since the last greasing operation in the control unit; and generating a greasing operation when the operating time of the decanter centrifuge is equal to or exceeds the specific time interval between greasing operations (“a device for calculating a time interval being dependent on a previous lubrication event and the operational parameter” and “producing a lubrication signal in response to the time interval reaching a predetermined interval constant”, Abstract). 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 control unit of combined Koch and Van der Ham with the control unit configuration taught by Hadank for the purpose of providing a flexible and efficient control system for automatically lubricating critical areas of work machines (col. 2 lines 21-26, Hadank).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Koch, Van der Ham, and Hadank discloses a decanter centrifuge (Fig. 2A and 2B, Koch) comprising the control unit according to claim 14.
Claims 4-6, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch in view of Van der Ham, and further in view of Hadank, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Carothers et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2011/0308888, hereinafter Carothers).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Koch, Van der Ham, and Hadank teaches calculating a time interval being dependent on a previous lubrication event and an operational parameter (Abstract, Hadank) and that if the bearing has been inadequately lubricated, on the other hand, a new dose of grease can cause a transient decrease in temperature when the cool grease reaches a hotter-than-normal bearing (para. [0022], Van der Ham, hotter-than normal bearing temperature corresponds to the bearing housing temperature increases beyond a first specific temperature), does not disclose wherein the specific amount of grease to be injected at each greasing operation is increased when between greasing operations the bearing housing temperature increases beyond the first specific temperature.
Carothers discloses a lubrication system in which feedback from a flow meter is provided to a controller/PLC to adjust the pump’s output flow to a precise rate based on operating parameters (para. [0100]). 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 method of the combination of Koch, Van der Ham, and Hadank such that when the bearing temperature behavior indicates under greasing as taught by Van der Ham, the controller would adjust/increase the amount of grease injected during a greasing operation, as taught by Carothers, for the purpose of compensating for any changes in the operating parameters (para. [0100], Carothers).
Regarding claims 5, 16, and 17, the combination of Koch, Van der Ham, and Hadank teaches calculating a time interval being dependent on a previous lubrication event and an operational parameter (Abstract, Hadank) and that if the bearing is adequately lubricated, adding additional lubricant will cause a transient increase in bearing temperature due to the increased friction until the grease is smeared out evenly (para. [0022], Van der Ham), but does not specifically disclose generating a stop signal and setting the specific amount of grease to be injected at each greasing operation to less or equal to the amount of grease injected into the bearing housing when during the greasing operation or immediately thereafter the bearing housing temperature increases beyond a second specific temperature, the second specific temperature being indicative for an over-greasing of the bearing housing.
Carothers discloses a lubrication system in which feedback from a flow meter is provided to a controller/PLC to adjust the pump’s output flow to a precise rate based on operating parameters (para. [0100]). 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 method of the combination of Koch, Van der Ham, and Hadank such that when the bearing temperature behavior indicates over-greasing as taught by Van der Ham, the controller would stop the lubrication operation or decrease the amount of grease when bearing temperature behavior indicates over-greasing, as taught by Carothers, for the purpose of compensating for any changes in the operating parameters (para. [0100], Carothers), in particular, generating a stop signal and setting the specific amount of grease to be injected at each greasing operation to less or equal to the amount of grease injected into the bearing housing when during the greasing operation or immediately thereafter the bearing housing temperature increases beyond a second specific temperature. Such a termination or limitation of lubricant delivery would prevent excessive lubrication and is a predictable control response given the teachings of Van der Ham (teaches over-greasing is detectable via temperature increase) and Hadank (teaches control of lubrication operation based on previous lubrication event and operational parameters).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Koch, Van der Ham, Hadank, and Carothers teaches bearing temperature behavior that would indicate over-greasing (para. [0022], Van der Ham) and modifying the lubrication interval in response to detected operating parameters (Abstract, Hadank). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the combination of Koch, Van der Ham, and Hadank to increase the specific time interval between greasing operations when during the greasing operation or immediately thereafter the bearing housing increases beyond the second specific temperature, for the purpose of avoiding excessive lubrication. Such a combination merely applies known sensor data feedback (Van der Ham) to a known lubrication interval control (Hadank) to achieve the predictable result of improved bearing lubrication, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, the combination of Koch, Van der Ham, Hadank, and Carothers discloses the method according to claims 4 and 5. Van der Ham further discloses wherein the decanter centrifuge comprises a grease pump (lubrication pump 10, Fig. 1, Van der Ham) connected to the bearing housing (corresponding to bearing 18, Fig. 1; “a lubrication operation by moving lubricant toward an interior of a housing of a bearing”, Abstract, Van der Ham), whereby the start signal causes the pump to start and the stop signal causes the pump to stop (controller 36 actuates the pump to start and stop, para. [0020], Van der Ham). 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 method of modified Koch with the grease pump taught by Van der Ham for the purpose of providing lubricant to lubricant injectors (para. 0018), Van der Ham).
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 a method comprising the steps of automatically overwriting the stored specific time interval to be equal or less than the current operating time to trigger an immediate operation upon detecting a temperature indicative of the under-greasing; and generating an immediate stop signal and decreasing the specific amount defined for subsequent operations upon detecting a temperature indicative of the over-greasing. In particular, Van der Ham discloses that bearing temperature transients are indicative of under and over greasing conditions, but does not disclose a control unit that responds to these determinations by overwriting a stored time interval or dose parameter for subsequent operations.
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