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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “and” at the end of line 11 should be removed and an “and” should be added to the end of the third to last line. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (US 2022/0289106) in view of Ito (WO2021/182057).
With regard to claim 1, Masuda discloses a transmission (1, which Examiner notes as a speed reducer is a type of transmission) comprising: a case (100); a carrier (4) housed inside the case (as seen in Fig. 2) and configured to rotate relative to the case around a rotation axis via bearings (as seen in Fig. 2 via bearings 6); and a seal mechanism (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 2 below) provided between an inner circumferential surface of the case and an outer circumferential surface of the carrier (as seen in Fig. 2), wherein the seal mechanism includes a seal lip portion (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 2 below) having a lip end (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 2 below (i.e. the end portion of the lip including the contact ridge)) for sealing (as seen in Fig. 2 it has this capability), wherein the bearings provided between the inner circumferential surface of the case and the outer circumferential surface of the carrier (as seen in Fig. 2), and the lip end is formed as an apex of the seal lip portion (as seen in Fig. 2) and is configured as a pointed contact portion that linearly contacts with the outer circumferential surface of the carrier along a circumferential direction of the carrier (as seen in Fig. 2 as it contacts the outer circumference of the carrier and does so in at least a small area of linear in cross-section contact), wherein the seal mechanism is arranged in line with the bearings along the rotation axis (as seen in Fig. 2 as the seal mechanism at least partially axially overlaps the bearings).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Masuda fails to disclose that the seal mechanism includes a suction-increasing portion, the suction-increasing portion being configured to increase, in accordance with a circumferential speed of the carrier, a feed rate of fluid fed from an outside of the seal lip portion toward an inside of the seal lip portion through an interstice between the lip end and the outer circumferential surface of the carrier, that the suction-increasing portion has a plurality of ribs extending from the lip end toward an outside of the seal lip portion along an axial direction of the carrier, so as to be inclined relative to the axial direction, that the suction-increasing portion includes a plurality of rib regions arranged along a circumferential direction of the lip end, and wherein in the plurality of rib regions, the plurality of ribs are disposed in parallel to each other along the circumferential direction of the lip end, that the plurality of rib regions are spaced intermittently along the circumferential direction of the lip end, and wherein the suction-increasing portion includes inter-rib regions disposed between any two of the plurality of rib regions adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction of the lip end, the inter-rib regions having no ribs, wherein each of the plurality of rib regions is formed with the same length along the circumferential direction of the lip end, and each of the plurality an inter-rib regions is formed with the same length along the circumferential direction of the lip end, and that an axial length of each of the plurality of ribs along the axial direction of the carrier is the same.
Ito discloses a transmission (i.e. the device shown in Fig. 1-2 can be considered to be a transmission as it transmits force/motion via the shaft. Additionally see the abstract (e.g. in English language equivalent US 2023/0089005) describing a reduction gear) comprising: a case (2); a carrier (4) housed inside the case and configured to rotate relative to the case (as seen in Fig. 2, described in the abstract, etc.); and a seal mechanism (1) provided between the case and the carrier (as seen in Fig. 2), wherein the seal mechanism includes a seal lip portion (18) having a lip end (i.e. the free end portion of the lip including at least the portion for contact with the shaft as seen in Fig. 2) for sealing (as seen in Fig. 2), and wherein the seal mechanism includes a suction-increasing portion (i.e. a portion including the ribs 19a/b, disclosed as a pumping feature (i.e. suction) in para. [0044], etc. of the English language equivalent), the suction-increasing portion being configured to increase, in accordance with a circumferential speed of the carrier, a feed rate of fluid fed from an outside of the seal lip portion toward an inside of the seal lip portion through an interstice between the lip end and the outer circumferential surface of the carrier (as seen in Figs. 2, etc. and described in para. [0044], etc. of the English language abstract, etc. as the pumping/suction provided by the ribs happens during rotation of the carrier the fluid feed rate would clearly be influenced by the speed of the carrier/shaft as a basic fluid dynamics principle and such would increase upon some direction of change in the speed), that the suction-increasing portion has a plurality of ribs (19a/b), a plurality of rib regions (i.e. a circumferential region encompassing the rings) and a plurality of inter rib regions (a circumferential region between the ribs), the plurality of ribs extended from the lip end toward an outside of the seal lip portion along an axial direction of the carrier (as seen in Figs. 2-5), so as to be inclined relative to the axial direction (as seen in Figs. 2-5), that the plurality of rib regions are spaced intermittently along the circumferential direction of the lip end (as seen in Figs. 2-5), wherein the plurality of inter-rib regions is disposed between any two of the plurality of rib regions adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction of the lip end (as seen in Figs. 2-5) , the plurality of inter-rib regions having no ribs (as seen in Figs. 2-5), wherein each of the plurality of rib regions is formed with the same length along the circumferential direction of the lip end (i.e. as seen in Figs. 2-5 the maximum circumferential length is the same. Additionally and/or alternatively as the rib regions are approximately triangular they have a plurality of lengths along the circumferential direction such that one of each is rib region is the same), and each of the plurality an inter-rib regions is formed with the same length along the circumferential direction of the lip end (as seen in Figs. 2-5 as either all or half of the inter-rib regions are approximately triangular in shape they have a plurality of lengths, at least one of which is the same as circumferential length of each other inter-rib region), wherein in the plurality of rib regions, the plurality of ribs are disposed in parallel to each other along the circumferential direction of the lip end (as seen in Figs. 2-5), wherein an axial length of each of the plurality of ribs along the axial direction of the carrier is the same (as seen in Figs. 2-5).
It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the device of Masuda with the seal mechanism of Ito such that it has the seal mechanism includes includes a suction-increasing portion, the suction-increasing portion being configured to increase, in accordance with a circumferential speed of the carrier, a feed rate of fluid fed from an outside of the seal lip portion toward an inside of the seal lip portion through an interstice between the lip end and the outer circumferential surface of the carrier, that the suction-increasing portion has a plurality of ribs extending from the lip end toward an outside of the seal lip portion along an axial direction of the carrier, so as to be inclined relative to the axial direction, that the suction-increasing portion includes a plurality of rib regions arranged along a circumferential direction of the lip end, and wherein in the plurality of rib regions, the plurality of ribs are disposed in parallel to each other along the circumferential direction of the lip end, that the plurality of rib regions are spaced intermittently along the circumferential direction of the lip end, and wherein the suction-increasing portion includes inter-rib regions disposed between any two of the plurality of rib regions adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction of the lip end, the inter-rib regions having no ribs, wherein each of the plurality of rib regions is formed with the same length along the circumferential direction of the lip end, and each of the plurality an inter-rib regions is formed with the same length along the circumferential direction of the lip end, and that an axial length of each of the plurality of ribs along the axial direction of the carrier is the same as taught by Ito. Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of at least returning leaked grease to the internal space as disclosed by Ito (see paras. [0044], etc. of the English language equivalent).
With regard to claim 3, the combination (Masuda) discloses that the carrier rotates relative to the case such that a circumferential speed of the outer circumferential surface of the carrier is 70 mm/sec or higher (Matsui discloses this capability as it has the ability to rotate at such a speed as they are disclosed as relatively rotating and thus can run at such a speed, even if just for a short time or not without damaging the device, as there is nothing that prevents such).
With regard to claim 6, combination discloses that wherein an axial dimension W of the plurality of rib regions along an axial direction of the carrier satisfies a following condition: W≥{(WR2-Wr2)/2}/tanφ where WR2 is an outer diameter of the outer circumferential surface of the carrier, Wr2 is an inner diameter of the seal lip portion, and φ is a lip angle of the seal lip portion (examiner notes that all of the axial dimensions of the plurality of rib regions disclosed in Ito meet this limitation as WR2 and Wr2 are equal to each other as they meet each other as seen in Figs. 2 of Ito and thus WR2-Wr2 is zero, zero divided by the tangent of any angle is zero, and W is clearly greater than 0).
With regard to claim 7, the combination (Ito) discloses that prior to assembly of the seal mechanism, the plurality of ribs protruding from the lip end along a radial direction of the lip end have a height, and the plurality of ribs have a width along the lip end, but it silent as to the exact dimensions of any of the seal mechanic and this fails to explicitly disclose that the height is 0.01 mm to 0.10 mm and the width of 0.05 mm to 0.30 mm. However it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the dimensions of the ribs such that the height is 0.01 mm to 0.10 mm and the width is 0.05 mm to 0.30 mm as such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Such a modification would have provided the expected benefits of providing purposely sized ribs for the intended environment and/or desired pumping amount. And/or it would have been considered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the height be 0.01 mm to 0.10 mm and the width be 0.05 mm to 0.30 mm as it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation absent some showing of criticality. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Such a modification would have provided the expected benefits of providing purposely sized ribs for the intended environment and/or desired pumping amount.
With regard to claim 8, the combination (Matsuda) discloses that at a position where the seal mechanism is installed, there is a dimensional difference between an inner diameter of the case and an outer diameter of the seal mechanism before assembly compared to an original width, or a radial dimension of the seal mechanism before assembly (as seen in Fig. 1, etc. as the seal mechanism is held by friction there must be some amount of difference in diameter to make the interference fit), but is silent as thus fails to explicitly disclose that the dimensional difference is larger than 5% and smaller than 20% of the original width, or the radial dimension of the seal mechanism before assembly. However it would have been considered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the dimensional difference be larger than 5% and smaller than 20% of the original width, or the radial dimension of the seal mechanism before assembly as it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation absent some showing of criticality. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Such a modification would have provided the expected benefits of optimizing the interference fit of the seal mechanism (e.g. balancing the installation force required with rotational resistance of the seal, etc.).
With regard to claim 9, combination (Ito) discloses that for any two of the plurality of rib regions adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction of the lip end, the plurality of ribs are formed to be inclined in opposite directions (as seen in Figs. 2-5).
With regard to claim 11, the combination (Ito) discloses that a total of circumferential lengths of the plurality of rib regions is less than an entire length of the lip end along the circumferential direction (as seen in Figs. 2-5), and appears to disclose that the total of circumferential lengths of the plurality of rib regions is within a range of 30% to 80% of an entire length of the lip end along the circumferential direction (as seen in Figs. 2-5, or at the very least similar values). However it would have been considered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the total of circumferential lengths of the plurality of rib regions is within a range of 30% to 80% of an entire length of the lip end along the circumferential direction as it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation absent some showing of criticality. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Such a modification would have provided the expected benefits of optimizing the amount of pumping/suction caused by the ribs.
With regard to claim 12, the combination (Ito) appears to discloses that in the suction-increasing portion, the plurality of ribs have an inclination angle of 20° to 30° (as seen in Figs. 2-5 and depending on which direction they are measured with respect to), but is silent as to the exact angle of inclination and thus fail to explicitly disclose an inclination angle of 20° to 30°. However it would have been considered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have inclination angle be 20° to 30° as it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation absent some showing of criticality. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Such a modification would have provided the expected benefits of optimizing the amount of pumping/suction caused by the ribs.
With regard to claim 13, the combination (Ito) discloses that in the plurality of rib regions, there is an interval between any two of the plurality of ribs adjacent to each other along the circumferential direction of the lip end, but is silent as to and thus fails to explicitly disclose that the interval is within a range of 0.1 mm to 5 mm. However it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the interval be within a range of 0.1 mm to 5 mm as such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Such a modification would have provided the expected benefits of providing purposely sized ribs for the intended environment and/or desired pumping amount. Additionally and/or alternatively it would have been considered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the interval be within a range of 0.1 mm to 5 mm as it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation absent some showing of criticality. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Such a modification would have provided the expected benefits of optimizing the amount of pumping/suction caused by the ribs.
With regard to claim 14, combination (Ito) discloses that the suction-increasing portion is set such that the feed rate of fluid is 0.2 mL/h to 30 mL/h (i.e. the suction-increasing portion of Yasui is capable of such as the shaft can be operated at different speeds and with different amount of oil/fluid there at to meet this feed rate).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 6-9, and 11-14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. In so much as they may apply to the above grounds of rejection, Applicant’s arguments filed 03 June 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Specifically Examiner notes the only prior art arguments are with reference to the ribs of Yasui et al. reference and that reference is no longer in the current combination (see above), accordingly such arguments are moot. Additionally as detailed above Ito discloses such features.
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 NICHOLAS L FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5354. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/NICHOLAS L FOSTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights