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 channel with three distinct angles 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 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 is inconsistent with the disclosure as the channel needs three distinct angles but only 2 angles are being shown for the channel. Para. [0053] says that the channel includes the first and second angles and then para. [0054] states the gap may be arranged at a third angle. However the claim is now stating that the channel includes all three angles, there is no support for this in the original filing. Either the claim needs to be amended to define the gap with the third angle to be consistent with the disclosure or Applicant needs to indicate where support for the channel having three angles is found and shown in the original filing.
Claim 8 is also not supported in the original filing, claim 1, as noted above, requires a channel with three sides and three angles with one of the sides having the third angle, however in claim 8 the gap is also at the third angle. There is no support for a channel with three sides and three angles and then a gap also at a third angle.
NOTE: If Applicant amends to have a channel with two surfaces and then a gap at a third angle, Hunt would still be applicable.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is 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.
In claim 7, it is unclear what “deviate” means. What is structurally required to “deviate”? The issue is made further unclear as the third angle 510a in figure 5 is parallel to the axis and would not appear to “deviate” in a traditional sense of the term. As best understood, since the third angle in the instant application appears parallel to the axis a parallel relationship that is offset from the axis itself will be treated as a deviating configuration. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunt (US 11017977 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Hunt discloses (in fig. 6 and annotated fig. 8) a liquid metal bearing (800), comprising:
a channel (CH) fluidly coupling a liquid metal reservoir (804) to a gap (610, shown in fig. 6) between a sleeve (602) and a shaft (604);
the channel (CH) having a first section (FS) sloped at a first angle (A1),
and a second section (SS) sloped at a second angle (A2),
wherein the first angle (A1) is different from the second angle (A2),
the channel (CH) further having a third section (TS) sloped at a third angle (A3), wherein the third angle (A3) is different than the first angle (A1) and the second angle (A2).
PNG
media_image1.png
527
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hunt discloses the liquid metal bearing of claim 1, wherein the first section (FS) has a first length and the second section (SS) has a second length, different from the first length (the length of the FS is longer than SS), and wherein the third section (TS) has a third length (the length of TS is shorter than FS and SS) from the first length and the second length.
Regarding claim 4, Hunt discloses the liquid metal bearing of claim 1, further comprising a fill port (802) with a first end opening into the liquid metal reservoir (804) and a second end including a plug (808).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Hunt discloses the liquid metal bearing of claim 1, further comprising a curved transition section (CTS in annotated fig. 8) positioned between the first section (FS) and the second section (SS), and the third section (SS), wherein each of the first angle (A1), second angle (A2), and the third angle (A3) deviate from an axis about which the shaft rotates.
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(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt (US 11017977 B1) alone.
Regarding claim 3, Hunt discloses the liquid metal bearing of claim 1 but does not disclose the liquid metal reservoir has a first volume and the gap has a second volume greater than or equal to the first volume.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the liquid metal reservoir have a first volume and the gap have a second volume greater than or equal to the first volume, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Volume is a result effective variable as col. 10, lines 38-51 of Hunt discloses that the volume in the liquid metal reservoir is dependent on the size of the liquid metal reservoir and the size may be selected based a variety of factors such as the type of metal using the assembly, the thickness of the liquid metal interface, the number of bearings in the assembly, etc.
Regarding claim 5, Hunt discloses the liquid metal bearing of claim 1 but does not disclose a first region of the sleeve which is in contact with an interior surface of the shaft has a first surface finish and a second region of the sleeve which is not in contact with the interior surface of the shaft has a second surface finish, different from the first surface finish.
Hunt further teaches (in the alternate embodiment of fig. 7 and col. 10, lines 52-63) a first region of the sleeve (702, which is the inner surface of the sleeve) which is in contact with an interior surface of the shaft (704) has a first surface finish (ceramic coating) and a second region (the outer surface of the sleeve) of the sleeve (704) which is not in contact with the interior surface of the shaft (702) has a second surface finish (non-ceramic coating), different from the first surface finish (ceramic coating) for the purpose of having high resistance to gallium corrosion at high temperatures during processing and use and retaining their anti-wetting properties (col. 10, lines 52-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a first region of the sleeve which is in contact with an interior surface of the shaft has a first surface finish and a second region of the sleeve which is not in contact with the interior surface of the shaft has a second surface finish, different from the first surface finish, as further taught by Hunt, for the purpose of having high resistance to gallium corrosion at high temperatures during processing and use and retaining their anti-wetting properties (col. 10, lines 52-63). The second finish would not need the same ceramic coating as it is not interacting with the liquid metal.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt (US 11017977 B1) in view of Hunt 2 (US 20220351931 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hunt discloses (in fig. 3, 6 and annotated fig. 8) the liquid metal bearing of claim 1 with an expansion chamber (344) formed between the sleeve (302) and the shaft (304) and a complementary section (310) of the sleeve (302) but does not disclose a pinning feature at an interface of a flange of the shaft and a complementary section of the sleeve, wherein the pinning feature separates the gap from an expansion chamber formed between the sleeve and the shaft.
Hunt 2 teaches in (in claims 6-8) that a pinning feature can be place at any interface between the sleeve and shaft for the purpose of improving the maintenance and effectiveness of the anti-wetting seals (para. [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective to have a filing date of the claimed invention to have a pinning feature at an interface of a flange of the shaft and a complementary section of the sleeve, wherein the pinning feature separates the gap from an expansion chamber formed between the sleeve and the shaft, as taught by Hunt 2, in the liquid metal bearing of Hunt for the purpose of improving the maintenance and effectiveness of the anti-wetting seals (Hunt 2 para. [0016]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt (US 11017977 B1) in view of Wolfgang (DE 102015215306 B4) and in further view of Hunt 2 (US 20220351931 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hunt discloses (in fig. 3, 6 and annotated fig. 8) the liquid metal bearing of claim 1 and expansion chamber (344) but does not disclose a wetting reservoir fluidly coupled to the liquid metal reservoir by the gap, wherein the wetting reservoir is fluidically separated from the expansion chamber by a pinning feature.
Wolfgang teaches (in fig. 1) a wetting reservoir (11) fluidly coupled to the liquid metal reservoir (12) by the gap (gap between 11 and 12) for the purpose of lessening deformations that may occur during operation of the liquid metal plain bearing (para. [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wetting reservoir, as taught by Wolfgang, in the liquid metal bearing of hunt for the purpose of lessening deformations that may occur during operation of the liquid metal plain bearing (para. [0057]).
Hunt in view of Wolfgang does not teach the wetting reservoir is fluidically separated from the expansion chamber by a pinning feature.
Hunt 2 teaches in (in claims 6-8) that a pinning feature can be place at any interface between the sleeve and shaft for the purpose of improving the maintenance and effectiveness of the anti-wetting seals (para. [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective to have a filing date of the claimed invention to have the wetting reservoir is fluidically separated from the expansion chamber by a pinning feature, as taught by Hunt 2, in the liquid metal bearing of Hunt in view of Wolfgang for the purpose of improving the maintenance and effectiveness of the anti-wetting seals (Hunt 2 para. [0016]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, Applicant’s arguments are inconsistent with the rejection as they are arguing that A1 and FS are included in the liquid metal passage 712 and the other labels correspond to the bearing interface 714. However, liquid metal passage 712 and bearing interface 714 was never discussed in the rejection. Claim 1 only discloses that there is a channel, which is labeled as CH in annotated fig. 8, between liquid metal reservoir (804) and a gap (610, shown in fig. 6).
Applicant is arguing that the drawings cannot be relied upon since the reference Hunt ‘977 does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent to any dimensions, therefore, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value (citing MPEP 2125): MPEP 2125 also states that “drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed” and "it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification.” Examiner’s position is not based on drawing measurements but is based on a visual observation of the figures like B is larger than A. Hunt ‘977 clearly shows the channel with three distinct sides, all sloped at direction angles/directions relative to each other.
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 AIMEE T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 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 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.
/AIMEE TRAN NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617