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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leins, USP 6,748,342.
Regarding claim 1, Leins discloses a device for supporting an intermediate shaft of a gearbox (intended use), the device comprising: a bearing part (18/29) for supporting an intermediate shaft (“intermediate” does not structurally limit the shaft or require any particular device, the bearing in Leins supports a shaft 4), the bearing part having an outer surface with at least a section that is circumferential (radial bearing illustrated, the outer ring element 29 is circumferential with an outer surface 31); a carrier part (21) having an inner surface (at 25) extending around the outer surface [of the bearing part] at a first distance from the bearing part (spaced apart via the elastic element 36); and a molded part (36, “molded” is a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2113, regardless of how the part is made the required structure in light of the disclosure is an elastic or compressible body between the bearing and the carrier, this is what Leins discloses) for decoupling the carrier part from the bearing part (creates the space between the parts and thus the parts are decoupled in the same manner as disclosed in the instant application), the molded part (36) disposed between the inner surface and the outer surface (between the bearing outer ring and the carrier, see figure 3), wherein the molded part (36) comprises a ring (36 defines an annular element and is thus a ring, this is the same configuration as the instant application and thus 36 comprises a ring in Leins in the same manner as the instant application comprises a ring) that extends between the inner surface of the carrier part and the outer surface of the bearing part (see figure 3), wherein between an inner connecting surface of the molded part with the outer surface of the bearing part and between an outer connecting surface of the molded part and the inner surface of the carrier part there is solely a frictional connection without chemical bonding (36 is a separate element in which the bearing is held with friction, and in this case only friction based on the disclose of Leins, see column 5, line 34-column 6, line 4), and wherein the molded part comprises an elastomer (column 4, lines 57-61), and the molded part has at least one cut surface comprising a flat plane (as previously noted “cut surface” is a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2114, however Applicant has further defined the structure that the surface has, a flat plane or flat side surface, 36 in Leins is an annular element that fits between 18 and 21, in figure 2 there are no protrusions in the region where the molded part is installed and thus the ring would have flat ends, 36 is also disclosed by Leins as being a “striplike” member, strips of material commonly have flat sides, however it is further noted that the shape of the end face of the member has no effect on the functioning of the part as the critical area is the parts that are in contact, whether or not the end is cut, flat, round, jagged the elastomeric element performs the same function) and extending between the inner surface and the outer surface (the end faces extend between and connect the inner and outer surface together).
Regarding claim 2, Leins discloses that the outer surface, the inner surface, and/or the molded part are arcuate at least in regions thereof (all three parts are annular elements and are thus arcuate just like in the instant application, see also figure 8 and any one of the alternating regions of 36 can be considered arcuate regions).
Regarding claim 3, Leins discloses that the molded part (36) consists of an elastomer (Leins discloses only elastomers as the material for 36 and thus the part consists of an elastomer).
Regarding claim 4, Leins discloses the inner connecting surface of the molded part connects to the outer surface of the bearing part and the outer connecting surface of the molded part connects to the inner surface of the carrier, the inner connecting surface and the outer connecting surface are provided at a second distance from one another in an unassembled state, and the second distance is greater than the first distance (the recitation is attempting to define that the elastomer is compressed from an unassembled state to the assembled product, however the claim is defining the final product, this final product is anticipated by Leins, however the element 36 of Leins is an elastomeric cushion that compresses and thus compresses and expands as the carrier and bearing shift relative to each other, any one of these compression states can be considered as defining a first distance and the molded part in an uncompressed state defines a distance greater than this first distance and in figure 8 Leins shows and uncompressed state and when installed at least regions of 36 are compressed resulting in figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Leins discloses that the molded part (36) is configured to be transferred from the unassembled state to an assembled state by pressing in the molded part (36) between the bearing part (29) and the carrier part (21), and, in the assembled state, the molded part (36) is provided between the carrier part (21) and the bearing part (29, “by pressing” is defining how the apart is assembled, regardless of how the part is assembled the resulting structure is a molded part that is compressed between the carrier and the bearing, this is what Leins shows).
Regarding claim 8, Leins discloses that the bearing part (18) has a sleeve element (29 is pointing to an outer ring which is a type of sleeve element just like in the instant application), and the circumferential outer surface is provided on the sleeve element (the surface 31 that contacts the molded part is part of the outer ring/sleeve assembly).
Regarding claim 11, Leins discloses that the bearing part is a rolling bearing or a plain bearing (18 form a rolling/ball bearing).
Regarding claim 12, Leins discloses that the bearing part and/or the carrier part are made of metal and/or plastic and/or composite material (5 is disclosed a basic carrier which is made of 6 and 7 which are disclosed as being made of plastic, column 5, lines 6-29 and claim 2, 5 also includes the carrier part and thus the carrier part would also be made of plastic).
Regarding claim 13, Leins discloses a system comprising an intermediate shaft (shaft 4, again “intermediate shaft is not structurally limiting and thus any shaft can be considered as reading on the claim) and a device according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate shaft is connected to the bearing part and is rotatably mounted in the bearing part (the shaft element 4 is connected to and rotatably supported by the bearing part 18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leins, USP 6,748,342, in view of Durre, USP 10,590,983.
Regarding claim 9, Leins does not disclose the particulars of the carrier part and therefore does not disclose that the carrier part has at least one fastening device for connecting the part to an engine or a part attached to the engine (“for connecting…” is defining the purpose of the fastening device and thus is treated as an intended use recitation). While Leins shows that the carrier part is connected to other structural elements it is not clear from the figure if these features are holding the carrier in place or attaching other components to the carrier, the claim is defining the fastening devices as mounting features for the carrier part and it is not clear if Leins includes similar features.
Durre discloses that the carrier part (14) has at least one fastening device (at 17/19) for connecting the device to an engine and/or to a part attached to an engine (the fastening arrangement shown in Durre can be used to attach the bearing to any number of different devices including an engine or engine attachment part).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Leins and provide the carrier part with at least one fastening device, as taught by Durre, for the purpose and predictable result of providing a means that enables the carrier part to be effective secured to another component.
Regarding claim 10, Leins in view of Durre discloses that the fastening device (17/19 Durre) comprises at least one flange element (17) with at least one opening (19).
Durre teaches that a carrier part (14) can be made of metal or plastic (Durre discloses that the carrier part 14 can be metal in the form of aluminum or a plastic material, see column 4, lines 23-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Leins and make the carrier out of any previously known material, including metal or plastic as taught by Durre, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
However, it is noted that Applicant argues that the flanges in Marsh don’t act as a purely frictional connection and the newly applied reference to Leins uses teeth that define surface 32 which are similar to the “flanges” in Marsh. In Leins however it is clear from figure 4 that these features are causing the deformation of elastic member 36 which is creating the friction and not a possible interlocking feature which might be occurring in Marsh.
The amendment to define only friction between the parts, while limiting the claim, is also not fully consistent with Applicant’s own disclosure which states in paragraph 0018 that adhesion promoters in addition to the frictional feature, in other words bonding agents, can be used. Because of this any future argument that making the device without a bonding agent is critical will not be persuasive.
It is also noted that the Applicant cited document USP 5,868,503 also discloses a purely frictional connection between the parts.
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 JAMES PILKINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-5052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7-3.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/JAMES PILKINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617