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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments submitted on 03/19/2026 have been considered and entered. Claim 1 has been amended and claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-12 are pending in the present application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the latching ring in line 8 of the paragraph [0041] should be 25 and not 24 as stated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the one or more elastomer latching cams as recited in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the reference number 27 in fig. 5 does not show pointing to any element. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 10,655,664 B2) in view of Kaiser (EP 0482282 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Clark et al. discloses a bearing arrangement (fig. 5), comprising: a bearing receiver (300) having at least one receiver region, wherein a first resilient shaped body (top 100) and a second resilient (bottom 100) shaped body are inserted into unbonded (note the members 100 are press fitted and not bonded) the at least one receiver region, wherein the unbonded first resilient shaped body (top 100) and the unbonded second resilient shaped body (bottom 100) are held to be pretensioned by a pretensioning device (226), wherein a base (300) includes a through-hole (note the central through-hole formed by the base 300), and wherein the base (300) forms an axial limit for the first resilient shaped body and for the second resilient shaped body, wherein the first resilient shaped body and the second resilient shaped body each have a receiver for a bearing core (230) that extends through the first resilient shaped body and the second resilient shaped body in an axial direction, wherein the bearing core receiver has a first portion (note the top cylindrical portion of the top resilient member 100) with a first diameter and a second portion (note the conical bottom portion of the resilient member 100) with at least one second diameter, wherein in the second portion, the diameter of the bearing core receiver (note the conical bottom portion of the resilient member 100) is greater than an external diameter of the bearing core (230), wherein the bearing core receiver has a cylindrical shape in first portion (note the top cylindrical portion of the top resilient member 100) and a conical shape in the second portion (note the conical bottom portion of the resilient member 100).
Clark et al. discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to disclose the receiver region has a first receiver and a second receiver as recited in the claim. However, Kaiser discloses a similar device (fig. 1) comprising bearing receiver (1-2) having a base (2) and a radial cylindrical limit portion (1) for a first and second resilient shaped bodies (10-11) in a radial direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the invention was made to modify the receiver of Clark et al. to provide a radial cylindrical limit portion as taught by Kaiser will provide extra support on the resilient members while protecting them from being damaged by any foreign object.
Re-claim 3, the modified device of Clark et al. fails to disclose the first and second receivers at least partially form a radial cylindrical limit portion for the first and second resilient shaped bodies in a radial direction as recited in the claim. However, Kaiser discloses a similar device (fig. 1) comprising bearing receiver (1-2) having a base (2) and a radial cylindrical limit portion (1) for a first and second resilient shaped bodies (10-11) in a radial direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the invention was made to modify the receiver of Clark et al. to provide a radial cylindrical limit portion as taught by Kaiser will provide extra support on the resilient members while protecting them from being damaged by any foreign object.
Re-claim 4, the modified device of Clark et al. discloses at least one of the first receiver and the second receiver (note the conical portion of the member 1 of Kaiser in fig. 2) is shaped to be entirely or partially conical.
Re-claim 5, the modified device of Clark et al. discloses at least one of the first receiver and the second receiver (note the cylindrical portion of the member 1 of Kaiser in fig. 2) is shaped to be entirely or partially cylindrical.
Re-claim 6, the modified device of Clark et al. discloses at least one of the first receiver and the second receiver has an undercut (note the undercut of the member 1 where the seals members 29-30 are disposed in as shown in fig. 2 of Kaiser).
Re-claim 8, the modified device of Clark et al. discloses at least one of the first resilient shaped body and a second resilient shaped body includes a support collar (note the portion of the resilient member 100 resting on the receiving member 300 as shown in fig. 5 of Clark et al.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 10,655,664 B2) in view of Kaiser (EP 0482282 B1), and further in view of Sven (US 2008/0150206 A1).
Re-claim 7, the modified device of Clark et al. discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including the receivers but fails to disclose a fixing ring is pressed into the at least one receiver region in at least one of the first and second receivers. However, Sven discloses a bearing arrangement comprising a receiver (30 in fig. 2), resilient member (38) and a fixing ring (36) pressed into the receiver. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the invention was made to modify the receiver of Clark et al. to include a fixing ring as taught by Sven will further support the resilient member and prevent it from any unwanted displacement.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 10,655,664 B2) in view of Kaiser (EP 0482282 B1), and further in view of FR 1204848 A.
Re-claim 9, the modified device of Clark et al. discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to disclose at least one bore hole which is oriented in a radial direction is configured as a latching recess in the bearing receiver as recited in the claim. However, FR‘848 discloses a similar bearing arrangement (fig. 2) comprising a bearing receiver (1), a plurality of members (3) and a core (2), wherein, the bearing receiver comprising a plurality of latching recess (note the plurality of stepped portions of the bearing member 1) engage with a plurality of latching ring or grooves (note the plurality of stepped portions of the members 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the invention was made to modify the receiver of Clark et al. with the teaching of FR‘848 will further support the resilient member and prevent it from any unwanted displacement.
Re-claim 10, the modified device of Clark et al. discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to disclose at least one of the first resilient shaped body and a second resilient shaped body includes an elastomer latching ring as recited in the claim. However, FR‘848 discloses a similar bearing arrangement (fig. 2) comprising a bearing receiver (1), a plurality of members (3) and a core (2), wherein, the bearing receiver comprising a plurality of latching recess (note the plurality of stepped portions of the bearing member 1) engage with a plurality of latching ring or grooves (note the plurality of stepped portions of the members 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the invention was made to modify the receiver of Clark et al. with the teaching of FR‘848 will further support the resilient member and prevent it from any unwanted displacement.
Re-claim 11, the modified device of Clark et al. discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to disclose at least one of the first resilient shaped body and a second resilient shaped body includes one or more elastomer latching cams as recited in the claim. However, FR‘848 discloses a similar bearing arrangement (fig. 2) comprising a bearing receiver (1), a plurality of members (3) and a core (2), wherein, the bearing receiver comprising a plurality of latching recess (note the plurality of stepped portions of the bearing member 1) engage with a plurality of latching ring or grooves (note the plurality of stepped portions of the members 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the invention was made to modify the receiver of Clark et al. with the teaching of FR‘848 will further support the resilient member and prevent it from any unwanted displacement.
Re-claim 12, the modified device of Clark et al. discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to disclose at least one of the first resilient shaped body and a second resilient shaped body includes an elastomer latching groove as recited in the claim. However, FR‘848 discloses a similar bearing arrangement (fig. 2) comprising a bearing receiver (1), a plurality of members (3) and a core (2), wherein, the bearing receiver comprising a plurality of latching recess (note the plurality of stepped portions of the bearing member 1) engage with a plurality of latching ring or grooves (note the plurality of stepped portions of the members 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the invention was made to modify the receiver of Clark et al. with the teaching of FR‘848 will further support the resilient member and prevent it from any unwanted displacement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on some 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 MAHBUBUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-7218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 10pm 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, ROBERT SICONOLFI can be reached at 5712727124. 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.
/MAHBUBUR RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights