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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 12/2/2025, 3/5/2026, 3/13/2026, and 4/23/2026 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, and 11-12 are amended and claim 3 is cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the objections to claims 1 and 8-9, and as noted by Applicant on page 5 of the response, the amendments to claims 1 and 8-9 overcome the objections, which are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections of claims 2-5, 9, 11, and 12 under 112(b), and as noted by Applicant on page 5 of the response, the amendments to claims 2-5, 9, 11, and 12 overcome the rejections, which are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 102, and as noted by Applicant on page 6 of the response, the amendment to claim 1, which includes “wherein the shaft bearing portion of the lever unit has a groove in which a snap ring is arranged, the snap ring configured to be received in form-fitting fashion between the two mutually spaced-apart rows of detent hooks and/or detent projections,” overcomes the rejection of claim 1 under 102 as anticipated by Christanini.
However, in view of further search and analysis, new grounds for rejecting claim 1 under 103 are set forth herein.
Regarding the provisional statutory double patenting rejection of claims 2 and 4-13, and as noted by Applicant on page 7 of the response, the amendment to claim 1 obviates the rejections, which are withdrawn.
Regarding the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection of claim 1, the amendment to claim 1, in view of further search and analysis, does not overcome the grounds of rejection as set forth below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 4-13 of copending Application No. 18/258,273 (“Reference Application”) in view of Nishiguchi (US 2023/0024876 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table which compares claim 1 to claim 1 of the Reference Application.
Pending Application
Reference Application
Claim 1
Claim 1
A sensor comprising:
A sensor comprising:
a base, the base comprising:
a bearing; and
a sensor arranged in the base;
a base, the base comprising:
a bearing; and
a sensor arranged in the base;
an encoder; and
an encoder;
a lever rotationally deflectably mounted in the bearing, the lever comprising;
a shaft mounted in the bearing and connected to the base;
a lever unit rotationally deflectably mounted in the bearing, the lever comprising:
a shaft mounted in the bearing and connected to the base;
wherein the sensor detects the encoder,
wherein the sensor is configured to detect the encoder,
wherein the bearing comprises multiple detent hooks and/or detent projections arranged in encircling fashion on an inner shell of the bearing and formed as a single piece with the bearing, and
wherein the bearing comprises hooks and/or detent projections arranged in encircling fashion an inner shell of the bearing and formed as a single piece with the bearing,
wherein the multiple detent hooks and/or detent projections directly or indirectly hold the shaft,
wherein the multiple detent hooks and/or detent projections are configured to directly or indirectly hold the shaft
wherein the multiple detent hooks and/or detent projections comprise two mutually spaced-apart rows of detent hooks and/or detent projections arranged in encircling fashion on the inner shell of the bearing formed integrally with the bearing, the two mutually spaced-apart rows configured to be parallel to one another,
wherein the bearing comprises multiple detent hooks and/or detent projections arranged in encircling fashion on an inner shell of the bearing and formed as a single piece with the bearing, wherein the multiple detent hooks and/or detent projections are configured to directly or indirectly hold the shaft wherein the multiple detent hooks and/or detent projections comprise two mutually spaced-apart rows of detent hooks and/or detent projections arranged in encircling fashion on the inner shell of the bearing formed integrally with the bearing, and wherein the two mutually spaced-apart rows are configured to be substantially parallel to one another.
As can be seen from the above table, claim 1 includes substantially the same elements as claim 1 of the Reference Application. Claim 1 further includes “wherein the shaft bearing portion of the lever unit has a groove in which a snap ring is arranged, the snap ring configured to be received in form-fitting fashion between the two mutually spaced-apart rows of detent hooks and/or detent projections” which is not included in any of the claims of the Reference Application.
Using a snap ring as the retainer element on a shaft (disposed in a groove of the shaft) was known in the art prior to the effective filing date. For example, Nishiguchi discloses an encoder apparatus (Abstract) in which a shaft bearing portion has a groove in which a snap ring is arranged and configured in a form-fitting fashion to act as a retention means in terms of increasing the outer diameter of the shaft ([0096] and FIG. 11 depicting snap ring 144 as disposed within a groove in main shaft-side end portion 23a of the intermediate gear shaft 23 to form a retainer with respect to (adjacent to) support projection 141).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Nishiguchi’s teaching of using a snap ring as a retainer member disposed in a groove of a shaft as a retention means adjacent a detent projection to the apparatus recited in claim 1 of the Reference Application such that in combination the apparatus of Reference Application claim 1 also includes this feature.
Such a combination would amount to selecting a known design option (snap ring) for implementing shaft retention/anchoring by extending the shaft diameter in a known manner to achieve predictable results.
Dependent claims 2 and 4-13 include the same features of corresponding claims 2 and 4-13 of the Reference Application such that claims 2 and 4-13 are also not patentably distinct from the claims in the Reference Application and are also rejected on the grounds of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of the Reference Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been issued in a patent.
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 1-2, 9-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christanini (DE102019200029 A1) in view of Kotlaja (US 2017/0276511 A1), and in further view of Nishiguchi (US 2023/0024876 A1).
As to claim 1, Christanini teaches “[a] sensor (FIGS. 1 and 2 depicting sensor apparatus; page 2, Claims (7), paragraph beginning with “Angle sensor, comprising”) comprising:
a base (FIG. 2 sensor body 10 in combination with (enclosing) bushing 40), the base comprising:
a bearing (FIG. 2 bushing 40); and
a sensor arranged in the base (FIG. 2 signal detecting element 30 disposed within sensor body 10);
an encoder (FIGS. 1 and 2 signal emitting unit 25 disposed within shaft 23); and
a lever rotationally deflectably mounted in the bearing (FIGS. 1 and 2 operating lever 20 is configured with lever part 21 to be rotationally deflectable and as shown in FIG. 2 is partially mounted within bushing 40), the lever comprising a shaft mounted in the bearing and connected to the base (FIGS. 1 and 2 shaft 23 (per FIG. 2 shaft portion 23 is connected within the overall operating lever 20) is mounted within bushing 40 and connected, in part via contact with bushing 40, to sensor body 10),
wherein the sensor detects the encoder (FIG. 2 signal emitting unit 25 configured in proximity in conventional manner with signal detecting element 30 such that the sensor (detecting element 30) is configured to detect the encoder (signal emitting unit 25); page 3, Description, paragraph beginning with “The sensor further comprises a signal-detecting element 30”),
wherein the bearing comprises multiple detent hooks and/or detent projections (see FIG. 2 reproduced below and annotated to show hooks/projections; FIG. 4 depicting hook teeth 47c within bushing 40) arranged in encircling fashion on an inner shell of the bearing (FIGS. 2 and 4 depicting circumferentially arranged hook teeth 47c disposed on/from inner surface 24 (47 in FIG. 4) of bushing 40) and formed as a single piece with the bearing (FIG. 4 depicting hook teeth 47c as materially continuous with other portions of bushing 40), and
wherein the multiple detent hooks and/or detent projections directly or indirectly hold the shaft (see FIG. 2 reproduced below and annotated to show mechanical engagement (latching) between hook teeth and shaft 23; FIG. 6B depicting the engagement/latching between the hook teeth 47c and shaft 23; page 4, Description, paragraphs beginning with “The inner side surface 47” and “According to one embodiment, the hooking means”),
[AltContent: textbox (engagement)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (hook teeth)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (hook teeth)]
PNG
media_image1.png
704
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the multiple detent hooks and/or detent projections comprise” [a row] “of detent hooks and/or detent projections arranged in encircling fashion on the inner shell of the bearing formed integrally with the bearing (FIGS. 2 and 4 depicting circumferentially arranged hook teeth 47c disposed on/from inner surface 24 (47 in FIG. 4) of bushing 40; FIG. 4 depicting hook teeth 47c as materially continuous with other portions of bushing 40.”
Kotlaja further teaches that the multiple detent hooks/projections may comprise “two mutually spaced-apart rows” of detent hooks and/or detent projections arranged in encircling fashion on the inner shell (FIG. 5 depicting upper portion 80 of housing 70 (the “bearing” portion) including a first row of contact face segments 175 and a mutually spaced second row of contact face segments 176 arranged circumferentially along the inner surface of first portion 80). Examiner notes that contact face segments 175 and 176 project from the walls with respect to corresponding grooves 177 and 178 and further as illustrated in FIG. 6 in which projection from the inner wall is depicted as indents in the regions of 175 and 176 for retention of a to-be-inserted shaft), and “wherein the two mutually spaced-apart rows are configured to be substantially parallel to one another (FIG. 5 circumferential rows formed by contact face segments 175 and 176 appear substantially mutually parallel).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Kotlaja’s teaching of using two rows of parallel detent hooks, projections on the inner surface of a bearing to hold/secure a shaft that is part of a lever actuator to the sensor apparatus taught by Christanini as modified by Kotlaja such that in combination the sensor apparatus includes two such rows.
The motivation would have been to increase the flexibility in securing the shaft within the bearing such as at multiple vertical/axial points to increase stability of the shaft and to provide additional insertion (of the shaft) guidance as suggested by Kotlaja.
Regarding “wherein the shaft bearing portion of the lever unit has a groove in which a snap ring is arranged, the snap ring configured to be received in form-fitting fashion between the two mutually spaced-apart rows of detent hooks and/or detent projections,” Kotlaja discloses a protruding portion of the shaft as being operably positioned between the rows of detent projections (FIGS. 5 and with FIG. 6 reproduced below), but does not expressly disclose that the retention protrusion as being a snap ring disposed in a groove the shaft.
[AltContent: textbox (Shaft protrusion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Using a snap ring as the retainer element on a shaft (disposed in a groove of the shaft) was known in the art prior to the effective filing date. For example, Nishiguchi discloses an encoder apparatus (Abstract) in which a shaft bearing portion has a groove in which a snap ring is arranged and configured in a form-fitting fashion to act as a retention means in terms of increasing the outer diameter of the shaft ([0096] and FIG. 11 depicting snap ring 144 as disposed within a groove in main shaft-side end portion 23a of the intermediate gear shaft 23 to form a retainer with respect to (adjacent to) support projection 141).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Nishiguchi’s teaching of using a snap ring as a retainer member disposed in a groove of a shaft as a retention means adjacent a detent projection to the apparatus taught by Christanini as modified by Kotlaja, such that the shaft projection between the rows of detect projections is a snap ring disposed in a groove within the shaft.
Such a combination would amount to selecting a known design option (snap ring) for implementing shaft retention/anchoring by extending the shaft diameter in a known manner to achieve predictable results.
As to claim 2, the combination of Christanini, Kotlaja, and Nishiguchi teaches “[t]he sensor as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the lever is plastic molded as a single piece (Christanini: page 3, Description, paragraph beginning with “The sensor further comprises an actuating lever 20” that per FIGS. 1 and 2 include a lever part 21 and the shaft as formed from a same material that per the foregoing citation from page may be a plastic molding process).
Christanini further teaches that the parts of the angle sensor apparatus may be formed by plastic molding including parts comprising multiple distinct sub-parts (regions of the parts serving different functions) such as the sensor body 10 (page 3, Description, paragraph beginning with “With reference to the 1 and 2”) and the actuating lever 20. However, Christanini does not appear to teach that the base containing the sensor and the bearing in which the multiple detent hooks/projections are disposed are plastic molded as a single piece together.
Kotlaja discloses a substantially similar angular/rotation sensor apparatus (FIG. 1) in which a base containing a sensor and a bearing that holds a shaft that is part of an actuation lever are molded as a single piece together (FIGS. 1 and 2 housing 70 includes first portion 80 that supports and holds shaft (second shaft end 22) and therefore constitutes a bearing. Housing 70 further includes second portion 90 that contains sensor 5 and therefore constitutes a base containing a sensor). As depicted in FIGS. 2-3 first portion 80 and second portion 90 are formed as an integral, jointly molded unit (housing 70)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Kotlaja’s teaching of jointly/integrally molding a bearing portion and a base portion as a single piece with the sensor apparatus taught by Christanini as modified by Kotlaja and Nishiguchi, which teaches plastic molding as a readily available means for molding various pieces as a single unit such that in combination the apparatus includes “the base and the bearing [are] plastic molded as a single piece together.”
The motivation for molding the bearing and base as an single/integral piece would have been to reduce parts complexity in terms of number of parts and in terms of coupling of parts (integral molding reduces need for additional assembly) and using plastic molding as taught by Christanini would amount to selecting a known design option for combining such parts to achieve predictable results.
As to claim 9, the combination of Christanini, Kotlaja, and Nishiguchi teaches “[t]he sensor as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the base comprises least two fastening means (Christanini: FIGS. 1 and 5 depicting a pair of fasteners 1 within sensor body 10) comprising a thread (Christanini: page 3, Description, paragraph beginning with “With reference to the 1 and 2” explaining that screws may be used to be driven into recordings (threads) into the fasteners 11) or a substantially star-shaped recess, and
wherein the fastening means are configured such that a screw can be screwed into material of the corresponding fastening means by virtue of the screw at least partially cutting into the material of the two fastening means (Christanini: FIGS. 1 and 5 depicting fasteners 11 as holes into which a screw can be screwed into the interior surface and cut into the interior surface material; page 3, Description, paragraph beginning with “With reference to the 1 and 2” explaining that screws may be used to be driven into recordings (cuttings) into the fasteners 11).”
As to claim 10, the combination of Christanini, Kotlaja, and Nishiguchi teaches “[t]he sensor as claimed in claim 9, wherein the base comprises two recesses that each expose a part of the sensor (Christanini: FIGS. 2 and 7 depicting sensor body 10 as including recesses that expose sensor 30 and signal emitting element 25 (in cooperation with sensor 30 as part of overall sensor structure).”
As to claim 12, the combination of Christanini, Kotlaja, and Nishiguchi teaches “[t]he sensor as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the shaft comprises a collar configured to engage around, and be supported axially on, an encircling edge of the bearing (Christanini: see FIG. 2 reproduced below showing shaft collar engaged around and supported axially on an encircling edge of the bearing; FIG. 4 mounting collar/fret 44 an integral part of the bushing/bearing 40), and
wherein the bearing is substantially hollow cylindrical (Christanini: FIGS. 2 and 4 bushing 40 is substantially hollow and cylindrical).”
[AltContent: textbox (Upper edge of mounting collar/fret 44)]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (collar)]
PNG
media_image1.png
704
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 13, the combination of Christanini, Kotlaja, and Nishiguchi teaches “[t]he sensor as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sensor is configured as an angle sensor (Christanini: Title; Abstract) and/or ride height sensor and/or chassis position sensor.”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christanini in view of Kotlaja and Nishiguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mori (US 2020/0010649 A1).
As to claim 6, the combination of Christanini, Kotlaja, and Nishiguchi teaches “[t]he sensor as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lever is formed from” “plastics (Christanini: page 3, Description, paragraph beginning with “The sensor further comprises an actuating lever 20”).”
Christanini is silent regarding the type of plastics for forming the lever and therefore does not teach wherein the lever is formed from “carbon-fiber-reinforced” plastics.
Prior to the effective filing date, carbon-fiber-reinforced plastics were a well-known type of plastics material used for forming parts subject to kinematic forces such as automobile parts and lever instruments as disclosed by Mori ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Mori’s teaching of the wide-applicability of carbon-fiber-reinforced plastics as a useful plastics material for automotive parts and lever instruments to Christanini’s teaching of using a plastic molded lever such that in combination Christanini’s lever is formed from carbon-fiber-reinforced plastics.
The motivation would have been to enhance the performance in terms of durability and minimal weight of the apparatus as disclosed by Mori.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christanini in view of Kotlaja, Nishiguchi, and Mori as applied to claim 6 and in further view of Klochko (DE 102018119404 A1).
As to claim 7, the combination of Christanini, Kotlaja, Nishiguchi, and Mori teaches “[t]he sensor as claimed in claim 6,” but none of Christanini, Kotlaja, Nishiguchi, and Mori expressly teaches that the reinforced plastic molded components are formed from glass-fiber-reinforced such that neither teaches “wherein the bearing is formed from glass-fiber-reinforced plastics.”
Klochko discloses a sensor apparatus (Abstract) in which a sensor bushing (bearing) may be formed from glass-fiber-reinforced plastics (page 2, Description, paragraph beginning with “It can be further provided that the hollow pin and/or cutting section”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Klochko’s teaching of using a bushing/bearing formed of glass-fiber-reinforced plastics to the sensor apparatus taught by Christanini as modified by Kotlaja, Nishiguchi, and Mori to include a lever formed of carbon-fiber-reinforced plastics such that in combination the bearing is formed from glass-fiber-reinforced plastics.
The motivation would have been to form the bearing/bushing using a relatively lightweight and durable material for a kinematically stressful application as suggested by Klochko. Such combination would furthermore amount to selecting a known design option for bearing/bushing materials in a sensor application to achieve predictable results.
As to claim 8, the combination of Christanini, Kotlaja, Nishiguchi, Mori, and Klochko teaches “[t]he sensor as claimed in claim 7,
wherein the encoder is arranged at an end of the shaft on a side averted from the lever (Christanini: FIG. 2 depicting signal emitting element 25 disposed at the end of shaft portion 23 of operating lever 20), and
wherein the encoder is held in form-fitting fashion (Christanini: FIG. 2 depicting signal emitting element 25 in cross section view as contained in contact with (form-fitted) material of shaft portion 23), and is engaged around laterally over its full circumference by the plastics body of the shaft (Christanini: FIGS. 2 depicting encapsulation of signal emitting element 25 by material of shaft portion 23 of lever 20 (per page 3, Description, paragraph beginning with “The sensor further comprises an actuating lever 20” may be plastics) in cross-section, and FIG. 3b depicting shaft portion as circumferentially unbroken).”
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christanini in view of Kotlaja, and Nishiguchi as applied to claim 10 and in further view of Herderich (US 2013/0192361 A1).
As to claim 11, the combination of Christanini, Kotlaja, and Nishiguchi teaches “[t]he sensor as claimed in claim 10,” and further appears to teach that the sensor may be overmolded within the recess (Christanini: page 3, Description, paragraph beginning with “Furthermore, in the example shown, the signal-detecting element 30”) but does not appear to teach “wherein an overmolded part of the sensor is laser-activated in a region around the recesses before an overmolding process.”
Laser-activating (e.g., scoring, structuring) the surface of a component prior to overmolding the component was known in the art prior to the effective filing date. For example, Herderich discloses a sensor apparatus (Abstract) in which laser-activation (structuring of a surface prior to overmolding) of a component is applied prior to plastic overmolding ([0043] pressure connection 3 having sensor 1 is extrusion coated with plastic (overmolded) in which housing is roughened by laser structuring to enhance robust connectivity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Herderich’s teaching of performing laser-activation (structuring of a surface using a laser) of a sensor component prior to plastic extrusion over the component to the sensor apparatus taught by Christanini, Kotlaja, and Nishiguchi which teaches the base having recesses that expose portions of a sensor and that the sensor is overmolded, such that in combination that apparatus has been laser-activated in a region around the recesses (at the area of exposure which is the only area in which the sensor/sensor housing is accessible) before an overmolding process.
The motivation would have been to ensure a more robust overmolding connection as disclosed by Herderich.
Subject Matter Patentably Distinguishable Over the Prior Arts
Claims 4-5, appear to be patentably distinct over the prior arts for the following reasons.
Regarding claim 4, the most pertinent prior arts are represented by Christanini and Kotlaja.
As set forth in the grounds for rejecting claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, the combination of Christanini, Kotlaja, and Nishiguchi teaches all elements of claim 1. Regarding the element introduced in claim 4, the prior arts do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein at least one row of the two mutually the two mutually spaced-apart rows has a width of the multiple detent hooks and/or detent projections along a peripheral direction on the inner shell of the bearing smaller than spacings to directly adjacent detent hooks and/or detent projections,” taken in combination with the other elements of claim 4 including the elements of claims 1.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and is likewise patentably distinguishable over the prior arts for the same reasons.
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 MATTHEW W BACA whose telephone number is (571)272-2507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/MATTHEW W. BACA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights