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 .
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neugart U.S. 6,413,006 in view of Lippardt DE 102019116165.
Re clm 1, Neugart discloses a clamping ring (5, Fig. 3), the clamping ring comprising: a ring main body (6) comprising a cut (7) formed in a part in a circumferential direction, a pair of circumferential-direction end portions (portions of 6 that face each other across cut 7) opposed to each other across the cut, and a cutout portion (7a) in an inner peripheral surface of the ring main body; bolt holes (holes in 6 through which bolt 8 passes) passing through the pair of circumferential-direction end portions, the bolt holes allowing a bolt (8) to be inserted therethrough and then tightened to reduce the ring main body in diameter, wherein the inner peripheral surface of the ring main body forms a cylindrical shape (Fig. 2 and 3) with a constant inner diameter in an axial direction, excluding the cut and the cutout portion, wherein an outer peripheral surface of the ring main body forms a cylindrical shape with a constant outer diameter in the axial direction, excluding the cut (Fig. 2 and 3).
Neugart does not disclose a misalignment preventing part configured to prevent misalignment of a center of gravity of the ring main body from a center line of the inner peripheral surface of the ring main body, wherein the misalignment preventing part is configured by a center line of the outer peripheral surface of the ring main body being located at a position closer to the bolt holes with respect to a center line of the inner peripheral surface of the ring main body.
Lippardt teaches a clamping arrangement in which the location of an inner peripheral surface is chosen such that the overall center of gravity lies on the axis of rotation of the shaft ([0023]) for the purpose of preventing an imbalance during rotation ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Neugart and provide a misalignment preventing part configured to prevent misalignment of a center of gravity of the ring main body from a center line of the inner peripheral surface of the ring main body, wherein the misalignment preventing part is configured by a center line of the outer peripheral surface of the ring main body being located at a position closer to the bolt holes with respect to a center line of the inner peripheral surface of the ring main body for the purpose of preventing an imbalance during rotation.
The limitation “for fixing a part of an inner ring of a bearing through a diameter-reducing action to a shaft part by tightening the part of the inner ring from an outer periphery thereof” is considered the intended use of the clamping ring, outside the scope of the clamping ring and does not structurally limit the clamping ring in any way. Thus, the limitation is given little or no patentable weight.
Re clm 5, Neugart in view of Lippardt further discloses the misalignment preventing part is set based on the center of gravity of the ring main body under a state in which the bolt is mounted into the bolt holes (the dynamic balance of Lippardt is based on the fully assembled device; the bolt is a part of the clamping ring and the clamping ring is dynamically balanced).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neugart U.S. 6,413,006 in view of Lippardt DE 102019116165 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lang U.S. 2007/0009322.
Neugart in view of Lippardt discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 3, Neugart in view of Lippardt does not disclose the misalignment preventing part comprises one or a plurality of holes passing through the ring main body.
Lang teaches a clamping ring comprising one or a plurality of holes passing through the ring main body (12) for the purpose of mass balancing the clamping ring ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Neugart in view of Lippardt and provide any number of mass balancing features to the clamping ring including one or a plurality of holes passing through the ring main body for the purpose of dynamically balancing the clamping ring during rotation.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neugart U.S. 6,413,006 in view of Lippardt DE 102019116165 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bauer U.S. 11,536,318.
Neugart in view of Lippardt discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 4, Neugart in view of Lippardt does not disclose the misalignment preventing part comprises a setback portion formed by a part of the outer peripheral surface of the ring main body being set inward toward the center line of the outer peripheral surface.
Bauer discloses a clamping ring comprising a setback portion (70, Fig. 5) formed by a part of the outer peripheral surface of the ring main body being set inward toward the center line of the outer peripheral surface for the purpose of mass balancing the clamping ring (col. 6: lines 36-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Neugart in view of Lippardt and provide any number of mass balancing features to the clamping ring including a setback portion formed by a part of the outer peripheral surface of the ring main body being set inward toward the center line of the outer peripheral surface for the purpose of dynamically balancing the clamping ring during rotation.
Re clm 6, Neugart further discloses the bolt to be mounted into the bolt holes of the clamping ring.
Neugart does not disclose a bearing unit, comprising: the clamping ring of claim 1; the inner ring; the shaft part to be fitted on an inner periphery of the inner ring; and an outer ring being rotatable relative to the inner ring.
Bauer discloses a clamping ring used for a bearing unit (Fig. 1 and 2), comprising: the clamping ring of claim 1; the inner ring (12); the shaft part (4) to be fitted on an inner periphery of the inner ring; and an outer ring (2) being rotatable relative to the inner ring.
Since both Neugart and Bauer disclose clamping rings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the clamping ring of Neugart into any well-known environment such as the bearing unit of Bauer to provide a bearing unit, comprising: the clamping ring of claim 1; the inner ring; the shaft part to be fitted on an inner periphery of the inner ring; and an outer ring being rotatable relative to the inner ring to achieve the predictable result of radially clamping the bearing to a shaft.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Neugart in view of Lippardt does not disclose the misalignment preventing part of claim 1. The examiner disagrees. Applicant states that “Lippardt discloses shifting the entire rotating body and not just the center of gravity of the ring main body”. The examiner notes that Applicant is attempting to attack the references individually. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is clear that Lippardt discloses Applicant’s inventive concept, which is locating of an inner recess surface such that the center of gravity of a device lies on the axis of rotation. As noted in MPEP § 2141.03, "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397.
Even if Applicant could reasonably argue that Lippardt does not teach the general concept of moving a recess to adjust the center of gravity of any desired device and that one of ordinary skill in the art must only glean from the reference moving a recesses in view of the hole device, it would not change the modification in any way since Neugart shows the hollow shaft as symmetric. Thus, the center of gravity of the hollow shaft is already located on the axis of rotation and no offset of the recess of the hollow shaft is needed for the center of gravity to be aligned with the rotational axis. As such, relocating the recess of the clamp to prevent imbalance of the whole device would produce the exact same structure as relocating the recess of the clamp for only the clamp ring structure, since the member to be clamped (the hollow shaft) of Neugart is already balanced. Put another way, since the member to be clamped of Neugart is already balanced, moving the recess of the clamp ring to change the center of gravity of only the clamp ring to be in line with the rotational axis is the same as moving recess of the clamp ring to change the center of gravity of the whole arrangement to be in line with the rotational axis. There is functionally no difference between the two.
Furthermore, Applicant’s argument undercuts his own claim language. If Applicant’s “misalignment preventing part” only prevents misalignment between the center of gravity of the ring main body as required in claim 1, then once the bolts of claim 5 are provided, the device is no longer functions as a “misalignment preventing part” of the ring main body. Put another way, if Applicant’s arguments were applied to Applicant’s own claim 5, then the misalignment preventing part cannot take into account the added bolt, since it is not a part of the “ring main body”.
Applicant argues that the technical idea of Lippardt is different from that recited in claim 1, however, this is incorrect. Lippardt’s technical idea is to move an inner recess surface which clamps another element to affect the center of gravity of a device and remove imbalance during rotation. This is the exact same technical idea as that of the invention.
Applicant further argues that “Lang and Bauer fail to disclose the feature of claim 1”, however, this is incorrect. Lang explicitly states providing the misalignment preventing feature to “provide a mass balance of the clamping element itself” [0028]. Thus, even if Applicant could somehow reasonably argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have used the moving of the recess of Lippardt to move the center of gravity of only the clamp ring, Lang clearly does discloses moving the center of gravity of only the clamp ring.
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