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 .
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 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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 42 be found allowable, claim 47 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 16, 18, 42-44 and 46-50 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 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.
Re clm 42 and 46-47, 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).
Re clm 48, the improvement of Sone further discloses the plurality of teeth extend from the side wall (24a extends from cover section just above 24a, Fig. 2a).
Re clm 49, the improvement of Sone further discloses the bottom wall extends radially inwardly from the side wall (24b extends radially inward from portion above 24b, Fig. 2a).
Re clm 50, the improvement of Sone further discloses the side wall extends axially from the bottom wall (portion above 24b extends to the right to connect to 24a).
Claims 17 and 41 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 as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Orlowski U.S. 5,221,095.
Umemoto in view of Sone 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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umemoto JP H08-226447 in view of Sone U.S. 9,506,554 as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Shaikh U.S. 2017/0198754.
Umemoto in view of Sone 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 1-15, 21-40 and 45 allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings have been object to as not showing the “bottom wall axially overlapping the axially external annular surface” of claim 1. The bottom wall and the inner ring do not occupy the same axial location, therefore, they cannot be considered to be “axially overlapping”. The bottom wall is, however, radially overlapping with the inner ring since they occupy the same radial location as shown in Applicant’s Figures.
Claim 16
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found any motivation to make the proposed modification of Umemoto. As the rejection stated, the motivation is simple substitution of two known arrangements that perform the same function. See MPEP § 2143(I), specifically example (B). It is clear that the prior art of Umemoto differs from the claimed invention by the means of attaching the bearing cover to an inner ring. Umemoto discloses a press fit (fixedly fitted) connection between the cover and the inner ring. Sone, on the other hand, teaches a different means of attaching a cover to an inner ring. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the press fit of Umemoto with the attachment means of Sone since both attachment means fix the cover to the inner ring. Simple substitution inherently replaces one component/feature for another that performs the same function. The rational underpinning is provided in MPEP § 2143.
Applicant’s argument fails for the reasons cited below: Firstly, a rational underpinning was provided. Substitution of one known element for another known element both performing the same function is the rationale. Secondly, Applicant seems to be asserting that since the fastening means of Umemoto and the fastening means of Sone both fasten the cover to the inner ring then there would be no reason to substitute one for the other. Under Applicant’s criteria, simple substitution of one known element for another is impossible, since if the elements perform the same function, there would be no reason to make a substitution. This, of course, directly contradicts MPEP § 2143. Furthermore, the instant application is closest to Example 3 in MPEP § 2143(I)(B) which substitutes one known attachment means for another. The examiner further notes that the fact pattern of the cases cited by Applicant are different from that of the instant application. None of the case law cited is based on simple substitution of one known element for another known element providing the same functionality.
Regarding claim 16 and the dependent claims thereof, perhaps Applicant should claim that the teeth are located away from each axial end of the side wall, a feature not disclosed by the prior art.
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