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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 19, 21-22, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metterhausen (WO 2021160640 A1) in view of Hosmer et al. (US 20100046867 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Metterhausen discloses (in figs. 2, 3, and 7) a support assembly with a central axis (48), the support assembly comprising:
a casing (12) and comprising a radially internal mounting surface;
a bearing unit (32, 34, and 36) provided with a radially outer ring (32) comprising a radially external spherical mounting surface;
and an insert (40, fig. 7 and para. [0050] shows that 40 broken into two halves) interposed between the casing (12) and the bearing unit (32, 34, and 36) and housed inside the radially internal mounting surface of the casing (12),
the insert (40) comprising a radially internal spherical mounting surface,
the insert (40) comprising two half-shells (44, 46) arranged adjacent to each other,
wherein the bearing unit (32, 34, and 36) is mounted to the radially internal spherical mounting surface of the insert (40).
Metterhausen does not disclose the casing is made out of a composite material and the insert is made out of a metal.
Hosmer teaches (in fig. 2) the casing (24) is made out of a composite material (para. [0005] discloses casing can be made of polymers) and the insert (26) is made out of a metal (para. [0011] discloses the insert is formed from a strip of metal strip).
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 casing and insert be made of polymers and metal, respectively, as taught by Hosmer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Metterhausen in view of Hosmer does not teach each of the two half-shells of the metal insert extend circumferentially around the entire outer ring of the bearing unit.
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 half shells be symmetrical with each other relative to an axis of symmetry transverse to the support assembly as an obvious matter of design choice to arrange the split between the two halves along the vertical or y axis, since applicant has not disclosed that the arrangement relative to the vertical solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless of what axis the two halves are oriented symmetrically relative to since ultimately, they will always be symmetrical and cooperate in the same manner to support the rest of the structure. By doing so, the two half-shells of the metal insert will also extend circumferentially around the entire outer ring of the bearing unit.
Regarding claim 21, Metterhausen in view of Hosmer teaches (in Metterhausen figs. 2, 3, and 7) the support assembly of claim 19, wherein: the diameter of the mounting surface of the casing (12) is predefined, and the diameter of the spherical mounting surface of the metal insert (40) is not predefined but is substantially equal to the diameter of the spherical mounting surface of the radially outer ring (32) of the bearing unit (32, 34, and 36).
Regarding claim 22, Metterhausen in view of Hosmer teaches the support assembly of claim 19 but does not teach the casing is co-molded with the metal insert.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that co-molded may be made by any known method of manufacture which achieves the desired operational characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the casing and the metal insert of Metterhausen in view of Hosmer and make the casing be co-molded with the metal insert, since co-molded may be made by any known manufacturing method which is suitable to the desired operational characteristics of the part being made. Further, the patentability of the device does not depend on its method of manufacture.
[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Regarding claim 26, Metterhausen in view of Hosmer teaches (in Metterhausen fig. 7) the support assembly of claim 19, wherein the axial width of the outer ring (32) of the bearing unit is less than the axial width of the metal insert (40 and Metterhausen para. [0050] discloses that 40 can be broken into two parts).
Regarding claim 27, Metterhausen in view of Hosmer teaches (in Metterhausen fig. 7) the support assembly of claim 19, wherein the two half-shells (44 and 46) axially abut one another.
Regarding claim 28, Metterhausen in view of Hosmer teaches (in Metterhausen fig. 7) the support assembly of claim 19, wherein each of the two half-shells (44 and 46) form a portion of the radially internal spherical mounting surface of the metal insert (40).
Regarding claim 29, Metterhausen in view of Hosmer teaches (in Metterhausen fig. 7) the support assembly of claim 19, wherein each of the two half-shells (44 and 46) have a substantially semi-cylindrical shape.
Regarding claim 30, Metterhausen in view of Hosmer teaches (in Metterhausen fig. 7) the support assembly of claim 19, wherein the two half-shells (44 and 46) are symmetrical with each other relative to an axis of symmetry transverse to the central axis.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metterhausen (WO 2021160640 A1) in view of Hosmer et al. (US 20100046867 A1) and in further view of Shafer (US 2397164 A).
Regarding claim 20, Metterhausen in view of Hosmer teaches the support assembly of claim 19 but does not teach each of the two half-shells of the metal insert further comprises two insertion recesses formed along each respective spherical mounting surface.
Shafer teaches (in fig. 1) the metal insert (18) have insertion recesses (21).
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 insertion recesses, as taught by Shafer, in the support assembly of Metterhausen in view of Hosmer as the use of the insert recesses provides the predictable result of allowing the outer ring/bearing to be inserted/removed/replaced once the support assembly is fully assembled.
Claims 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metterhausen (WO 2021160640 A1) in view of Hosmer et al. (US 20100046867 A1) and in further view of Schlizio (DE 10045417 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Metterhausen in view of Hosmer teaches the support assembly of claim 19 but does not teach the composite material comprises glass fiber reinforced plastic.
Schlizio teaches the bearing block is made out of the composite material comprises glass fiber reinforced plastic (para. [0006]) for the purpose of high accuracy and being more cost effective (para. [0008]).
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 composite material comprises glass fiber reinforced plastic for the purpose of high accuracy and being more cost effective (para. [0008]). It has also been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 15-18 are allowed.
Claims 23 and 24 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the combination set forth in claims 1, 23, and 24.
In particular for claims 1 and 23, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious a plurality of radially external protuberances which are housed in respective anchoring grooves formed on the mounting surface of the casing in combination with the other claim limitation.
In particular, for claim 24, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious a support assembly wherein each of the two half-shells comprise a plurality of radially external protuberance, each protuberances comprising a corresponding through-hole through which one of the connecting pins is received to lock the two half-shells together with in combination with the other claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the objections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argued that the prior art does not show that each of the two half-shells of the metal insert extend circumferentially around the entire outer ring of the bearing unit. While neither Metterhausen nor Hosmer teaches this requirement, Metterhausen does teaches two half shells and it is explained that it is an obvious matter of design choice to arrange the split between the two halves along the vertical or y axis as it would perform equally well regardless of what axis the two halves are orientated symmetrically relative to since ultimately, they will always be symmetrical and cooperate in the same manner to support the rest of the structure.
Applicant further argued that that the that the claimed support assembly solves a specific problem (e.g., allowing the bearing unit to be mounted first and directly in its operating position) and is for a particular purpose (i.e., allowing installation of each
half-shell around a firstly mounted bearing unit). However, since claim 19 is an apparatus claim, what it allows to do in terms of assembly does not limit the apparatus. This means the specifics of when and how the half-shells are being mounted and installed in the support assembly does not have any effect on the apparatus claims.
Applicant later argues that the Office has failed to prove anything more than conclusory statements, with no evidentiary support for the proposition that an aspect of the claimed support assembly, which is neither disclosed or suggested by the cited references, would nonetheless have been an obvious design choice. They also argued that the office has not shown that the claimed configuration of two half-shells extending circumferentially around the entire outer ring of the bearing unit was a known alternative in the prior art.
However, it would be obvious to have the claimed configuration of two half-shells extending circumferentially around the entire outer ring of the bearing unit because when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 127 S.Ct. 1742 (2007). There are only a finite numbers of way the two half-shells can be split: along the x-axis or the y-axis.
Applicant also argued that the modification would affect the installation process but as stated above, the installation process does not affect the apparatus and would still support the assembly in a symmetrical way.
Conclusion
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
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617