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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 15/, 2026 has been entered.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2000249142 (JP142), in view of Smith, USP 9,316,260.
Regarding claims 1, JP142 discloses a support assembly for a rotatable element (third figure in document provided by Applicant, all line citations correspond to the translation provided by Applicant), the support assembly comprising: a frame (38) having a mounting seat (38a) and a liner (37) of elastomeric material (rubber, see paragraph 0028 and 0059), co-molded on the mounting seat (“co-molded” is a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2113, the only specific structure this could require is that the liner is bonded to the frame, this is disclosed in paragraph 0060 of the prior art), and a bearing unit (1, specifically made of 2/3/4/5) disposed within the mounting seat of the frame, the bearing unit including a stationary radially outer ring (3) having a spherical surface (3b) radially outwardly delimiting the outer ring, wherein the liner (37) is radially interposed between the seat (38a) of the frame and the spherical surface (3b) of the radially outer ring.
JP142 discloses a one piece frame (38) and thus does not disclose that the frame comprises a first half-frame and a second half-frame, the frame halves forming the mounting seat.
Smith teaches that as an alternate to a one-piece frame the bearing can be housed in a two piece frame (48, see column 2, line 59-column 3 line 9 which discloses that one piece and two piece frames are known alternatives), the two piece frame comprising a first and a second half frame (left and right sides of frame 48 in figure 6) with the frame halves collectively forming the mounting seat.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify JP142 and configure the one piece frame into a known alternative two piece frame with two symmetrical halves, as taught and explicitly disclosed by Smith as an alternative to a one piece frame, since substituting between two known frames, one piece vs two piece, is within the level of ordinary skill in the art and provides the predictable result of simplifying mounting the bearing as no special structure or insertion openings are needed in a two piece frame to allow the bearing to be placed in the frame.
Regarding claim 2, JP142 discloses that the elastomeric material of the liner is a nitrile rubber (see paragraph 0028 which discloses one of the materials for the elastic element as nitrile rubber).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, JP142 does not disclose a specific thickness for the liner and thus does not disclose that radial thickness of the liner is between 0.45 mm and 0.55 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to select any specific radial thickness for the liner, including between 0.45mm and 0.55mm, 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. Furthermore, in the translation JP142 states that the purpose of using the liner is for suppressing vibrations, this is the same purpose of the instant application, however one having ordinary skill in the art would select any specific thickness for the liner based on the vibration characters they want or want to exclude in the product and based on the specific utility of the bearing itself.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, JP142 discloses that the frame is made of pressed steel (see paragraph 0059, “pressed” is a product by process limitation, see MPEP 2113, that does not limit the claim to any particular structure and the shape of the frame in JP142 could be made using any number of different methods).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, JP142 in view of Smith discloses that the bearing unit has an axis of rotation (horizontal axis through the inner ring in both references), the first and second half-frames being symmetrical with respect to an axis transverse to the axis of rotation of the bearing unit (the two halves taught by Smith are symmetrical about the vertical axis indicated by the dashed line in figure 6).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 16, JP142 in view of Smith discloses that the first half-frame comprises a flange portion and an annular portion, connected to the flange portion and radially internal with respect to the flange portion [clms 6 and 14] and the second half-frame comprises a flange portion and an annular portion, connected to the flange portion and radially internal with respect to the flange portion [clms 7, 8 and 15] (each half of the frame taught by Smith includes a flange 52 and an annular portion extending from the inner portion of the flange to form the bearing seat just like the assembly of the frame in the instant application), and wherein the two flange portions are axially brought together and made integral by means of locking elements [clms 8 and 16] (the two flanges contact and are ultimately held together by a locking element in the form of a bolt or screw that passes through 58 just like in the instant application).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, JP142 in view of Smith discloses that the second half-frame comprises a flange portion and an annular portion (52 and annular portion forming bearing seat), connected to the flange portion and radially internal with respect to the flange portion [clm 9], and wherein the two annular portions (of both frame halves) have corresponding spherical surfaces, radially internal, which together form the mounting seat of the bearing unit inside the frame [clms 9 and 17] (the two annular portions form the spherical seat for the outer ring in Smith just like in the instant application).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, JP142 in view of Smith results in a frame that is split in two parts, the liner of JP142 would also be split in two with each half bonded to the corresponding frame half and thus the combination results in the liner comprising a first portion and a second portion, symmetrical with respect to the transverse axis, and co-molded (again this is a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2113) respectively on the spherical surface of the annular portion of the first half-frame and on the spherical surface of the annular portion of the second half-frame.
Regarding claim 19, JP142 in view of Smith, as explained in rejection of claim 10 above, results in the first and second portions of the liner being bonded to the mating surface of the split frame (taught by Smith). Smith includes a spacing in the mating surface region at 84 and thus the first and second portions of the liner would be spaced apart by this region in the combination.
Regarding claim 20, JP142 in view of Smith discloses that the outer ring of the bearing unit has opposite first and second outer axial ends (left and right side of 3), the first frame member having a radially inner-most end disposed radially outward of the first outer axial end of the outer ring, the second frame member having a radially inner-most end disposed radially outward of the second outer axial end of the outer ring (as further discussed below in addressing the first argument by Applicant, the combination is teaching splitting the housing of JP142, the rest of the housing in JP142 remains the same with the radially inner most ends of the housing being on the outer surface of the outer ring and thus being radially outside the outer ring).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that modify JP142 to be a two piece frame would render the device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Applicant bases this conclusion on the presence of the legs in Smith.
First, in the combination above Smith is being used to teach the two part housing concept, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case Smith suggests to one skilled in the art that spherical type rolling bearings can be housed in split housings.
Second, even if the combination required the bodily incorporation of the frame as shown in Smith, including the “legs”, Smith clearly illustrates spacing between the legs and the outer ring 72 at the axially outer end of the outer ring, this spacing allows for the same relative movement that Applicant is arguing that the legs prevent.
Because of this the combination with Smith, specifically teaching the concept of a split housing, does not destroy or render JP142 unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Applicant again presents the argument the stated motivation lacks rational underpinning. However, the Applicant then acknowledges in the remarks that the motivation provided is that the two piece frame “simplifies mounting” thus the rejection does include a reason. In this case Applicant disagrees with the reason and argues that making the frame in two pieces actually complicates mounting of the bearing. However, simplifying does not mean that all aspects need to be improved nor does it, in this case, mean the physical putting of the device together is easier. As further explained in the rejection above simplifying is in reference to there no longer being a need for special structure or insertion openings in the frame when using a two piece frame. In spherical type bearings the opening at the ends of the frame are smaller than the maximum diameter of the bearing, these types of bearings cannot be assembled without some insertion groove or hole that is required in the axial end to allow the bearing to pass, this requires more machining steps to make the part and sequenced insertion and alignment of the bearing in the frame during assembly, this can be considered complex. Another alternative would be to split the bearing itself and insert it in pieces into the frame, again another complex process. However, in the case of a split frame to halves of the housing can be simply placed around the bearing and then secured in place, this can be considered a simplification.
The argument also does not address the other portion of the rejection that points out that Smith actually acknowledges one piece frames members and split frames as being known alternatives.
Applicant further points out that the instant application discusses the field of endeavor being HVAC systems, however the claim is not drawn to an HVAC system. The claims are drawn to a generic support assembly and thus any device with a support assembly is applicable to the claimed invention. As there was no mention of an HVAC system in the original claims any addition of an HVAC system in to the claims would be considered a shift in the invention and the claims would be subject to an election by original presentation.
In item C Applicant argues that “co-molding” imparts specific structure where the parts form a single integrated component and makes the case that this is distinct from bonding or adhesion however the argument never states what is structurally different. Distinct materials co-molded together results in a two layer product, one part glued, bonded or other ways secured to another part results in a two layered product. What structural distinct does co-molding make over adhering two parts together? In co-molding two parts are being made together but the resulting product is a device with two distinct layers. There is no structural difference included by the phrase “co-molded” and thus the recitation is a product by process recitation.
With regards to new claim 20 the argument is again one of bodily incorporation focused on the legs of Smith, however Smith is teaching the concept of splitting the housing this can be applied to the JP142 without adding any other structure from the Smith document. In other words the combination does not require the presence of the legs, the same general shape in JP142 can be preserved and this shape meets the claim requirements.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights