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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 September 2025 has been entered.
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 “bottom wall axially overlapping the axially external annular surface of the radially inner ring of the bearing unit” of claim 1 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-12, 21 and 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 now recites “bottom wall axially overlapping the axially external annular surface of the radially inner ring of the bearing unit”. This feature was not described in the specification or shown in the drawings as originally filed. The bottom wall element is 61 and is shown in Fig. 2. Element 61 does not “axially overlap” the radial inner ring in any way. For element 61 to axially overlap any portion of the inner ring, including the axial end surfaces thereof, element 61 must occupy the same position as the inner ring. At most, element 61 abuts the axial end surface of the inner ring, but does not overlap it. The bottom wall element 61 does radially overlap the inner ring since at least a portion of the inner ring and a portion of the bottom wall element 61 occupy the same radial point.
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.
Claims 1-12, 21 and 35-39 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 1 recites “a bottom wall axially overlapping the axially external annular surface of the radially inner ring”.
Claim 37 recites “generally parallel”. The term “generally” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” 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. It is unclear which angles and geometries would be considered “generally parallel” and which would not.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 21, 35 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dickey U.S. 2,908,536.
Re clm 1, Dickey discloses a support assembly for a shaft (32, Fig. 1), comprising: a bearing unit (Fig. 1) configured to receive the shaft, the bearing unit comprising: a radially inner ring (14) comprising an axially external annular surface (for example, 52); and a radially outer ring (16) comprising an axially external annular surface (38); and a cover (10) comprising: a bottom wall (58, Fig. 2) axially overlapping the axially external annular surface of the radially inner ring of the bearing unit (58 ‘axially overlaps’ 52); a side wall (central portion of seal 10) integrally connected to the bottom wall; and an engaging portion (63) extending from a distal end of the side wall; wherein the cover is anchored to the radially inner ring, and wherein between the axially external annular surface of the outer ring and the engaging portion of the cover a dynamic seal is formed (via 38 and 63); wherein the cover bounds an internal space on a bearing unit side of the dynamic seal and bounds an external space on an exterior side of the dynamic seal, the cover being impervious to fluid to prevent passage of fluid from the external space to the internal space through the cover.
Re clm 5, Dickey further discloses the cover further comprises a circular opening in the bottom wall configured to receive the shaft of the support assembly (shaft 32 passes through central hole 58 of seal 10).
Re clm 6, Dickey further discloses the dynamic seal is a sliding contact seal (shown in Fig. 1).
Re clm 21, Dickey further discloses the dynamic seal is a fluid-tight seal (shown in Fig. 1).
Re clm 35, Dickey further discloses the bottom wall of the cover engages the axially external annular surface of the radially inner ring of the bearing unit (58 abuts 52).
Re clm 37, Dickey further discloses the side wall (including potion of seal that extend to left from 58) of the cover extends from the bottom wall in a direction that is generally parallel to an axis of rotation of the bearing unit.
Re clm 38, Dickey further discloses the engaging portion includes a tip (end of 53, Fig. 2) having an axial end surface facing the axially external annular surface of the radially outer ring of the bearing unit (as shown in Fig. 1), the dynamic seal being formed between the axially external annular surface of the outer ring and the axial end surface of the tip.
Re clm 39, Dickey further discloses the axial end surface of the tip is in sliding contact with the axially external annular surface of the outer ring.
Claims 1, 5-6, 21, 35 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsujimoto JP-H08303473.
Re clm 1, Tsujimoto discloses a support assembly (Fig. 1 and 4) for a shaft (9) comprising: a bearing unit (1-4) configured to receive the shaft, the bearing unit comprising: a radially inner ring (1) comprising an axially external annular surface (at 6b, Fig. 1); and a radially outer ring (2) comprising an axially external annular surface (where 7 contacts 2); and a cover (5) comprising: a bottom wall (6b) axially overlapping the axially external annular surface of the radially inner ring of the bearing unit; a side wall (including 6a) integrally connected to the bottom wall; and an engaging portion (7) extending from a distal end of the side wall; wherein the cover is anchored to the radially inner ring; and wherein between the axially external annular surface of the outer ring and the engaging portion of the cover a dynamic seal (where 7 contacts 2) is formed; wherein the cover bounds an internal space on a bearing unit side of the dynamic seal and bounds an external space on an exterior side of the dynamic seal, the cover being impervious to fluid to prevent passage of fluid from the external space to the internal space through the cover.
Re clm 5, Tsujimoto further discloses the cover further comprises a circular opening (radially inner end of 6b, Fig. 1; radially inner end of 52, Fig. 4) in the bottom wall configured to receive the shaft of the support assembly.
Re clm 6, Tsujimoto further discloses the dynamic seal is a sliding contact seal (shown in Fig. 1 and 4).
Re clm 21, Tsujimoto further discloses the dynamic seal is a fluid-tight seal (shown in Fig. 1).
Re clm 35, Tsujimoto further discloses the bottom wall of the cover engages the axially external annular surface of the radially inner ring of the bearing unit (shown in Fig. 1 and 4).
Re clm 37, Tsujimoto further discloses the side wall (where 6a points, Fig. 1) of the cover extends from the bottom wall in a direction that is generally parallel to an axis of rotation of the bearing unit.
Re clm 38, Tsujimoto further discloses the engaging portion includes a tip (end of 7) having an axial end surface facing the axially external annular surface of the radially outer ring of the bearing unit (as shown in Fig. 1), the dynamic seal being formed between the axially external annular surface of the outer ring and the axial end surface of the tip.
Re clm 39, Tsujimoto further discloses the axial end surface of the tip is in sliding contact with the axially external annular surface of the outer ring (shown in Fig. 1 and 4).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto JP-H08303473 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ishikawa JP 2008-039142.
Tsujimoto discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 7, Tsujimoto does not disclose the dynamic seal is a labyrinth seal.
Ishikawa teaches contact seals and labyrinth seals as equivalents (Fig. 1 and 4).
Since both Tsujimoto and Ishikawa disclose seals for bearings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the seal type of Tsujimoto with any well-known equivalent, such as the labyrinth seal type of Ishikawa to provide the dynamic seal is a labyrinth seal to achieve the predictable result of sealing the bearing. Furthermore, providing a labyrinth seal is known to reduce bearing torque since it eliminates a source of friction.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickey U.S. 2,908,536 as applied to claim 1 above.
Dickey discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 9, Dickey does not disclose a radial thickness of the engaging portion comprises between 1.5 mm and 3 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dickey and provide a radial thickness of the engaging portion comprises between 1.5 mm and 3 mm, 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). Lip thickness for a seal is a well-known result effective variable. For example, it is well-known that if the lip is too thick, then the excessive wear and friction occur since the lip does not flex appropriately to make contact with the opposing sealing surface. On the other hand, if the lip is too thin, it becomes easy for the lip to deform and then debris can easily pass the lip.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto JP-H08303473 as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Shaikh U.S. 2017/0198754.
Tsujimoto discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 10, Tsujimoto does not disclose the cover is made of thermoplastic polyurethane.
Shaikh teaches a seal made of thermoplastic polyurethane ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the resin of Tsujimoto with that of the thermoplastic polyurethane of Shaikh, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto JP-H08303473 as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Orlowski U.S. 5,221,095.
Tsujimoto discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 11 and 12, Tsujimoto does not disclose a hardness of the engaging portion is between 55 Shore A and 60 Shore A [clm 11] or the hardness is 55 Shore A [clm 12].
Orlowski teaches seal elements in which the seal has a Shore A hardness between 55 and 60 (col. 5: lines 8-11) or the hardness is 55 Shore A so that the seal is resiliently deformable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of Tsujimoto to have a hardness of the engaging portion is between 55 Shore A and 60 Shore A or the hardness is 55 Shore A so that the seal is resiliently deformable.
Claims 16 and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umemoto JP H08-226447 in view of Sone U.S. 9,506,554.
Re clm 16, Umemoto discloses a cover (Fig. 2b) for a bearing unit, the cover comprising: a bottom wall (11a1) comprising an opening (into which inner ring 6a fits); a side wall (11a) integrally connected to the bottom wall; an engaging portion (11b) extending from a distal end of the side wall and configured to form a dynamic seal with a radially outer ring of a bearing unit, wherein the cover is impervious to fluid to prevent passage of fluid from one side of the cover to the other side of the cover through the cover.
Umemoto does not disclose a plurality of teeth configured to secure the cover to a radially inner ring of the bearing unit.
Sone discloses a seal mounting comprising a plurality of teeth (24a, Fig. 1 and 4b) configured to secure the cover to a radially inner ring of the bearing unit.
Since both Umemoto and Sone disclose fastening a seal to a bearing inner ring, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the fasting means of Umemoto with any well-known fastening means, such as that of Sone and provide a plurality of teeth configured to secure the cover to a radially inner ring of the bearing unit to achieve the predictable result of securely fastening the seal to the bearing.
Re clm 42, the improvement of Sone further discloses each tooth of the plurality of teeth is spaced axially apart from the bottom wall (24a are spaced from 24b).
Re clm 43, the improvement of Sone further discloses each tooth of the plurality of teeth extends radially inward from the sidewall (as shown in Fig. 2a).
Re clm 44, the improvement of Sone further discloses the bottom wall has an annular shape and the side wall has a cylindrical shape (shown in Fig. 2-4; having an annular shape does not mean the wall is continuous).
Claims 17 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umemoto JP H08-226447 as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Orlowski U.S. 5,221,095.
Umemoto discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 17 and 41, Umemoto does not disclose a hardness of the engaging portion is between 55 Shore A and 60 Shore A [clm 17] or the engaging portion has a hardness of 55 Shore A [clm 41].
Orlowski teaches seal elements in which the seal has a Shore A hardness between 55 and 60 (col. 5: lines 8-11) so that the seal is resiliently deformable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of Umemoto to have a hardness of the engaging portion is between 55 Shore A and 60 Shore A or is 55 Shore A so that the seal is resiliently deformable.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umemoto JP H08-226447 as applied to claim 1 above.
Umemoto discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 18, Umemoto does not disclose a radial thickness of the engaging portion comprises between 1.5 mm and 3 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Umemoto and provide a radial thickness of the engaging portion comprises between 1.5 mm and 3 mm, 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). Lip thickness for a seal is a well-known result effective variable. For example, it is well-known that if the lip is too thick, then the excessive wear and friction occur since the lip does not flex appropriately to make contact with the opposing sealing surface. On the other hand, if the lip is too thin, it becomes easy for the lip to deform and then debris can easily pass the lip.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umemoto JP H08-226447 as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Shaikh U.S. 2017/0198754.
Umemoto discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 19, Umemoto does not disclose the cover is made of thermoplastic polyurethane.
Shaikh teaches a seal made of thermoplastic polyurethane ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the resin of Umemoto with that of the thermoplastic polyurethane of Shaikh, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8 and 36 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.
Claims 13-15, 22-34 and 40 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the references disclose the features of claim 1, however, this is incorrect. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have introduced 112(b) issues into the claims. Still further, Dickey discloses the newly amended features since any surface that faces axially outward can be considered an “axially external annular surface”. Furthermore, portions of the cover/seal of Dickey axially overlap surface 52 of the inner ring.
In order to expedite prosecution, the claims have also been rejected based on Tsujimoto who discloses a similar bottom wall feature as that of the invention.
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 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