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 .
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13-14, 17,19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nias U.S. 2013/0315655 in view of Hartmann U.S. 2011/0150377.
Re clm 1, Nias discloses a bearing (Fig. 5), comprising: a sidewall (cylindrical surface of Fig. 5 formed axially between flanges 508 and 510) comprising a substrate, wherein the sidewall further comprises: at least one slot (512); and at least one protrusion (500) forming a concave cross-sectional shape (relative to the inner radial surface of Fig. 5, 500 are concave; [0042] states waves can extend inward with respect to the central axis) in the sidewall down an axial direction between each at least one slot, wherein the at least one protrusion extends continuously from a first axial end at least 50% and not greater than 100% of an axial length of the sidewall to a second axial end (as shown in Fig. 5), wherein the at least one slot runs at least 50% and not greater than 100% of the axial length of the sidewall (shown in Fig. 5), and wherein a width of the at least one protrusion is greater than a width of the at least one slot in a circumferential direction (as shown in Fig. 5).
Nias does not disclose a low friction layer overlying the substrate.
Hartmann teaches providing a low friction layer (PTFE; [0007]) overlying the substrate (such as the spring steel annular band) for the purpose of improving the sliding properties of the bearing ([0007], [0021], [0024] and [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nias and provide a low friction layer overlying the substrate for the purpose of improving the sliding properties of the bearing.
Re clm 2, Nias discloses a bearing (Fig. 5), comprising: a sidewall (cylindrical surface of Fig. 5 formed axially between flanges 508 and 510) comprising a substrate, wherein the sidewall further comprises: at least one slot (512); and at least one protrusion (500) forming a convex cross-sectional shape (relative to the outer radial surface of Fig. 5, 500 are convex; [0042] states waves can extend inward with respect to the central axis) in the sidewall down an axial direction between each at least one slot, wherein the at least one protrusion extends continuously from a first axial end at least 50% and not greater than 100% of an axial length of the sidewall to a second axial end (as shown in Fig. 5), wherein the at least one slot runs at least 50% and not greater than 100% of the axial length of the sidewall (shown in Fig. 5), and wherein a width of the at least one protrusion is greater than a width of the at least one slot in a circumferential direction (as shown in Fig. 5).
Nias does not disclose a low friction layer overlying the substrate.
Hartmann teaches providing a low friction layer (PTFE; [0007]) overlying the substrate (such as the spring steel annular band) for the purpose of improving the sliding properties of the bearing ([0007], [0021], [0024] and [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nias and provide a low friction layer overlying the substrate for the purpose of improving the sliding properties of the bearing.
Re clm 3, Nias discloses an assembly (Fig. 1 and 2), comprising: an outer component (102) including a bore (116) within the outer component; an inner component (120) disposed within the bore; and a bearing (122; Fig. 5) disposed between the inner component and the outer component, the bearing comprising: a sidewall (cylindrical surface of Fig. 5 formed axially between flanges 508 and 510) comprising a substrate, wherein the sidewall further comprises: at least one slot (512); and at least one protrusion (500) forming a concave or convex cross-sectional shape (relative to the outer radial surface of Fig. 5, 500 are convex; [0042] states waves can extend inward with respect to the central axis) in the sidewall down an axial direction between each at least one slot, wherein the at least one protrusion extends continuously from a first axial end at least 50% and not greater than 100% of an axial length of the sidewall to a second axial end (as shown in Fig. 5), wherein the at least one slot runs at least 50% and not greater than 100% of the axial length of the sidewall (shown in Fig. 5), and wherein a width of the at least one protrusion is greater than a width of the at least one slot in a circumferential direction (as shown in Fig. 5).
Nias does not disclose the sidewall having a low friction layer overlying the substrate.
Hartmann teaches providing a low friction layer (PTFE; [0007]) overlying the substrate (such as the spring steel annular band) for the purpose of improving the sliding properties of the bearing ([0007], [0021], [0024] and [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nias and provide a low friction layer overlying the substrate for the purpose of improving the sliding properties of the bearing.
Re clm 4, Nias further discloses the bearing further comprises a projection (for example, 508).
Re clm 5, Nias further discloses the protrusion comprises a rectilinear radial cross-section (a radial cross-section by a plane that extends in the radial direction and in the axial direction would have a rectilinear cross-section).
Re clm 6, Nias further discloses the protrusion comprises an arcuate protrusion in a radial direction (Fig. 4 and 5).
Re clm 8, Nias further discloses the at least one slot comprises a length, Ls, wherein Ls:Ws ≥ 2:1 (as shown in Fig. 5; claim 20).
Re clm 10, Nias further discloses the projection extends radially inward from the sidewall ([0039]).
Re clm 13, Nias further discloses the protrusion comprises a plurality of protrusions (Fig. 5).
Re clm 14, Nias further discloses the slot comprises a plurality of slots (Fig. 5).
Re clm 17, Nias further discloses the bearing comprises an annular cross-sectional shape perpendicular to a central axis (Fig. 4 and 5).
Re clm 19, Nias further discloses the sidewall comprises an axial gap (516).
Re clm 20, Nias further discloses the bearing further comprises at least one radial flange (508 and 510).
Re clm 21, Nais further discloses the at least one protrusion forms a polygonal cross-section (a radial cross section of the protrusion by a plane extending in the radial direction and in the axial direction; a circumferential cross-section of a plan extending in the axial direction and in a tangential direction).
Re clm 22, Nias further discloses the at least one protrusion forms an arcuate cross-section (for example a cross section of the flange 508 or 510 taken by a plane perpendicular to the axial direction would be seen as an annular circle or arcuate).
Re clm 23, Nias further discloses the bearing further comprises a slot bridge (618, Fig. 6; [0089]) in the slot.
Re clm 24, although Nias discloses both the slot bridge and the slot change the stiffness of the sleeve ([0062] through [0064]), Nias does not explicitly state that the slot bridge has a length greater than 15% the length of the bearing.
Since Nias discloses the slot length ([0062] and therefore by extension the slot bridge length as a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nias and provide the slot bridge has a length greater than 15% the length of the bearing, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Changing the slot length (and therefore the bridge length) would provide different stiffness characteristics to the sleeve.
Re clm 25, Nias further discloses at least one unformed section lacks the at least one protrusion (for example, where 514 points, Fig. 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nias does not disclose, teach or suggest its wave structures forming a concave or convex cross-sectional shape in the sidewall down an axial direction. At least elements 500 in Fig. 5 are shown as concave/convex shape as they extend in the axial direction. Put another way, elements 500 form cup shaped concaves relative to the inner radial surface of the element in Fig. 5 and form bump shaped convex elements relative to the outer radial surface of the element of Fig. 5.
Applicant argues that the Nais reference does not disclose, teach or suggest the desire for any tolerance ring of Nias to have sliding properties, low torque or a low coefficient of friction. The examiner is unaware of any requirement in the MPEP in which the primary reference must express a desire for the teaching of a secondary reference. If Nias did indeed disclose such a desire, Nias would be an anticipatory reference instead of an obviousness rejection. Applicant further asserts that the combination of Nias with Hartmann would “teach away” from the intended, “often permanent” friction based joints. The examiner notes that Nias does not disclose “permanent” friction based joints. This is merely Applicant’s opinion of the Nias reference and not what the reference actually discloses. Still further, Applicant has completely ignored the Hartmann reference and what it teaches. Specifically, Hartmann teaches providing a low friction layer to a tolerance ring or a bearing ring such that “the tolerance ring prevents overload by allowing rotation between components once a threshold torque level has been reached” in paragraph [0024]. Applicant’s argument is with the Hartmann reference, which suggests providing low friction layers to torque rings and not with the examiner’s rejection. Applicant’s assertion that the modification of Nias with Hartmann would “adversely affect the structure and functionality of the tolerance ring of Nias” is Applicant’s opinion. The examiner notes that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See MPEP §2145. The facts in the instant rejection are that Nias discloses a tolerance ring. Hartmann discloses modifying tolerance rings with a low friction layer to prevent overload by allowing rotation between components once a threshold torque level has been reached”. Such an improvement would prevent damage to the hard disk drive in the event that the actuator of the actuator arm attempts to move the arm past the intended range of motion and thus damaging various components of the device since the structure would be allowed to slip once a target torque is reached.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner notes that Hartmann could be used as the primary reference and Nias could be the secondary reference. Thus, even if Applicant’s arguments were found persuasive, modifying the bearing/tolerance ring of Hartmann with the shape of Nias would also anticipate the claims while rendering Applicant’s arguments moot.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALAN B WAITS whose telephone number is (571)270-3664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6-4 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, John R 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.
/ALAN B WAITS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights