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 statement filed 2/2/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
A copy of the cited WIPO publication has not been provided however a copy of the document was obtained and cited on the attached PTO-892. No additional action is needed by Applicant regarding this issue.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the lines, numbers and letters are not black, dense and dark and uniformly thick and well-defined (the lines/numbers/letters are pixelated and gray), see 37 CFR 1.84(l). The reference characters are also not the required 0.32cm (1/8 inch) in height, see 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3).
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 second shield being in contact with the anchoring element (clms 10 and 15) 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 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.
Claims 1-15 are 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.
Claim 1 lacks a clear frame of reference for axially inward and axially outside. With regards to “axially inwards” there is no frame of reference provided and thus it is unclear what the first shield is axially inwards relative to. For “axially outside” there is a reference point of the “first shield” recited but it remains unclear what direction axial outside is because of the lack of a frame of reference for “axially inwards”. The claim as currently written is attempting to introduce a feature while also defining its location at the same time which is causing the confusion. It is suggested that the claim be amended to remove “axially inwards” and then after introducing the second shield define the location of the two shields either relative to each other and/or the other bearing structure.
Claim 3 also references “axially outside” which is indefinite for the same reason since a clear frame of reference is not established. After addressing claim 1, claim 3 should be amended to make sure the frame of reference is consistent.
The terms “stably” and “stable” in claims 1-3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “stably” and “stable” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What degree of moving within the connection is permitted and the assembly still be considered “stable”?
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what location “on the outside” is referencing. Is this axially outside or radially outside? Or is this referencing “outside” of the bearing in general? After addressing claims 1 and 3 it is suggested that claim 4 be amended so that the frame of reference for “outside” is clarified and consistent with claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DD278387 (DD387).
Regarding claim 1, DD387 discloses a bearing unit comprising: a radially outer ring (1), rotatable with respect to an axis of rotation, a stationary radially inner ring (3, NOTE: in a standard a ball bearing what ring is rotating and which is stationary is subject to how the bearing is used and the frame of reference thus rotatable and stationary are not structurally limiting terms), a row of rolling bodies (4) interposed between the radially outer ring and the radially inner ring, a cage (5) for containing the rolling bodies, and two sealing devices (6/7, one on each side, the left hand side of the figure shows part of seal 6 however the specification translation references sealing both sides with the seal, see last paragraph on page 2, “two sided sealing”) arranged axially on opposite sides of the bearing unit and interposed between the radially inner ring and the radially outer ring, each sealing device comprising: a first shield sealed (6), axially inwards, against a support surface of the radially outer ring (at 2) and stably inserted in a first seat (2) of the radially outer ring, and a second shield (7) interference fitted on a radially outer surface of the radially inner ring and axially outside the first shield, wherein the first shield and the second shield are configured so as to generate a tortuous path (formed of 8/9/10) therebetween which hinders the ingress of contaminants into the bearing unit.
Regarding claim 2, DD387 discloses that the first shield comprises: a radially outer first flange portion (top of seal in figure, at 6) stably inserted in the first seat (2) of the radially outer ring, a radially inner second flange portion (radially inner most portion above 3), an annular central portion (middle portion opposed to cage 5), a frustoconical first connecting portion connecting the first flange portion to the central portion, and a frustoconical second connecting portion connecting the second flange portion to the central portion (the central portion is connected to the two ends using inclined or angled walls/surfaces which form frustoconical connecting portions).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DD278378 (DD378), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Uchida, USP 10,724,574.
DD378, while showing that the first shield is in a seat, does not disclose that the first shield is kept in a stable position in the first seat by an anchoring element interference fitted in a second seat of the radially outer ring, axially outside the first seat.
Uchida teaches that a sealing shield/element can be retained in a first seat (at 15a) by an anchoring element (19a) that is interference fitted in a second seat (20a) in the outer bearing ring (10a) positioned axially outside the first seat.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify DD378 and change the seal mounting configuration so that the first shield is kept in a stable position in the first seat by an anchoring element interference fitted in a second seat of the radially outer ring, axially outside the first seat, as taught by Uchida, since substituting between different known mounting configurations (seal retained in a groove verses a seal retained in an open seat with an anchoring element) provides the same predictable result of securing the sealing element in place to insure that the seal does not separate from the bearing ring. Substituting between different known mounting configurations is not inventive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, and the remainder of the claims that all ultimately depend from claim 4, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 teach nor render obvious the claimed combination of claims 1-3 and further including a second shield with the structural features and the positional relationship with the first shield components as set forth in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPub 2004/0080113, USP 6,595,695, USP 3,550,974, USP 2,917,328 disclose a bearing seal with two shields and a winding path between them.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES PILKINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-5052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7-3.
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.
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617