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 § 112
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 16 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 16, line 1, the limitation “about” is vague and indefinite. What range of angle is allowed with the term “about”? Is 35 degrees about 40 degrees? What structure is being claimed?
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) 1-7, 9-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al., WO2015/098896 (attached machine translation used for interpretation) in view of JP5205984.
PNG
media_image1.png
396
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
164
138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Yoshikawa et al. discloses a lubrication ring (11) for the transport of a lubricant (oil) from a lubricant container (10) in a bearing (31,32), the lubrication ring (11) to be driven by a rotating shaft (1), which is borne (see fig 3) by the bearing (31,32), the lubrication ring (11) comprising: a running surface (surface in contact with 1 in fig 5A) configured to interoperate with the shaft (1); and a transport surface (outer surface containing 13 in fig 5A) configured to transport lubricant (as described above), the transport surface (as described above) having a first and second axial surface (sides of 11 in fig 5A-5C) and a plurality of pockets (13 or 14) to transport of the lubricant (oil), the plurality of pockets (13 or 14) arranged adjacent to each other (see fig 5C or 6C) in a circumferential direction (see fig 5C or 6C) of the lubrication ring (11) between the first and second axial surfaces (as described above). Yoshikawa et al. does not specify that pockets are formed at an angle different from 90 degrees.
PNG
media_image3.png
178
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
JP5205984 teaches a similar bearing lubrication ring (see fig 2,4) including pockets (20) formed at an angle different from 90 degrees (see fig 2,4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the angled pockets described by JP5205984 in the system disclosed by Yoshikawa et al. in order to improve the scooping properties and hence lubrication rate of the ring.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshikawa et al. in view of JP5205984 discloses the lubrication ring (11) according to claim 1 wherein the lubrication ring (11) has a thickness in a radial direction (top to bottom in fig 6A), and each pocket (14) of the plurality of pockets (14 – see fig 6B) has a depth which (depth of 14 from transport surface radially inward) is at least 10 percent (see fig 6A-6C) of the thickness of the lubrication ring (11).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshikawa et al. in view of JP5205984 discloses the lubrication ring (11) according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of pockets (13,14) includes at least 30 pockets and at most 60 pockets (as best shown in 6C – roughly 40 pockets shown).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshikawa et al. in view of JP5205984 discloses the lubrication ring (11) according to claim 1, wherein two adjacent pockets (13) of the plurality of pockets are separated from each other by a web (non-indented portion between 13 as best shown in fig 5B).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshikawa et al. in view of JP5205984 discloses the lubrication ring (11) according to claim 4, wherein the web (as described above) forms an angle, different from 90 (see fig 2-3 - JP5205984), with the circumferential direction (see page 5 of machine translation – in Fig 6A-6C, radial grooves may be inclined in the radial direction forming an angle web structure) of the lubrication ring (11).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Yoshikawa et al. in view of JP5205984 discloses the lubrication ring (11) according to claim 5 but does not specify that the angle is at most 60 degrees or about 40 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to construct the pockets with the specified angle range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated employ the specified angle range in order to optimize the amount of oil scooped up and spread during operation to optimize machine efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Yoshikawa et al. in view of JP5205984 discloses the lubrication ring (11) according to claim 1, wherein, relative to a radial direction (see fig 5A-6C) of the lubrication ring (11), each pocket (13,14) of the plurality of pockets is limited by a concave surface (see bottom surface of 13 in fig 5B or 14 in fig 6B).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Yoshikawa et al. in view of JP5205984 discloses the lubrication ring according to claim 1, but does not specify that the running or transport surfaces are made from a synthetic material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ a synthetic material, 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 us as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to employ a synthetic material in order to improve corrosion resistance and reduce cost and weight associated with the parts.
Regarding claim 11, Yoshikawa et al. in view of JP5205984 discloses the lubrication ring (11) according to claim 1, with an inner section (flanged region adjacent 1), a middle section (middle vertical section shown in fig 11), and outer section (region containing 13 in fig 5A). Yoshikawa et al. does not specify that each section is comprised of separate parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the system from separate parts since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to employ a ring composed of separate parts in order to make the connector and fling contact parts adjustable for varied systems and optimal flow rates.
Regarding claims 12 and 18 Yoshikawa et al. in view of JP5205984 discloses the lubrication ring according to claim 11, but does not specify that the middle part is made from a metal or stainless steal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the specified material, 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 us as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to employ a synthetic material in order to improve corrosion resistance and improve strength and durability associated with the parts.
Regarding claim 13, Yoshikawa et al. in view of JP5205984 discloses the lubrication ring according to claim 11, wherein the inner part (as described above) and the outer part (as described above) encase the middle part (as described above).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshikawa et al. in view of JP5205984 discloses a bearing (31,32) for a pump (100) with a shaft (1) for rotating around an axial direction (see fig 3), the bearing (31,32) comprising: a hearing housing (35); a bearing cover (see right most surface in fig 3) attached to the bearing housing (35); a bearing structure (see fig 3) configured to bear the shaft (1); a lubricant container (10) for a lubricant (oil); the lubrication ring according to claim 1, the lubrication ring (11) configured to transport the lubricant and to supply the bearing structure (31,32) with the lubricant, the lubrication ring (11) configured to be driven by the rotating shaft (1).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshikawa et al. in view of JP5205984 discloses a pump (100), comprising: a bearing (31,32) comprising a bearing housing (35), a bearing cover (as described above) attached to the bearing housing (35), a bearing structure (31,32) configured to bear the shaft (1), a lubricant container (10) for a lubricant (oil), the lubrication ring (11) according to claim 1, the lubrication ring (11) configured to transport the lubricant and to supply the bearing structure (31,32) with the lubricant (oil), the lubrication ring (11) configured to be driven by the rotating shaft (1).
Regarding claim 20, Yoshikawa et al. in view of JP5205984 discloses the lubrication ring according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of pockets (13) are disposed between the first and second axial surfaces (as described above) so as to not be exposed in the axial direction (see fig 5A-5C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 19 is allowed for the reasons identified in the office action dated 10/7/2025.
Claim 17 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; for the reason identified in the office action dated 10/7/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered. Applicants argument with respect to the 112 rejection is not persuasive. The limitation “about” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear what range of angle is allowed with the term “about”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. JP5205984 was taught to the base reference to account for the newly added limitation. Applicants argument is therefore not persuasive.
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 MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7956. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 EST Monday - Friday.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
MICHAEL A. RIEGELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654