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:
In claim 1, line 3, the limitation “at least one first, outer ring is adapted to be attached by a press fit to the component” is objected because there is not a press-fit yet if the carrier element has to maintain the press fit between the first ring and the component over a range of temperatures.
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 1-14 and 16-18 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.
The term “high operating temperatures” in claims 1 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high operating temperatures” is 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. It Is unclear what is considered a high operating temperature as opposed to a low operating temperature.
Claim 1 is indefinite because line 3 states that the first outer ring is “attached by a press-fit to the component”; however, the last few lines states that the carrier element is deforming the first ring to create “a press fit.” What is unclear here is if there is already a press-fit in place, how is there a second press fit? If the first ring is already retained by a press fit as stated in line 3, how does the carrier element create another press fit? The actual invention seems to be that the carrier element has to have a sufficient radial thickness, and thus volume and mass, such that the expanded carrier element will exert a force on the reduced material thickness in the region of the shoulder of the ring so it is more easily deformed by the carrier element.
The claim must make that feature clearer, possibly by claiming the reduced thickness portion of the outer ring, which allows the carrier to expands and deflects the thinned out portion in order to maintain the press fit contact of the outer ring and the component during temperature increases or the carrier expands as temperature increases to deflect the thinned out portion radially outward to maintain the press fit between the outer ring and the component.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the combination set forth in claims 1 and 14.
In particular, for claim 1 and 14, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the carrier element being nonengaged with the component and configured to deformed the at least one first ring at high operating temperatures to retain the at least one first ring coupled with the component by a press fit in combination with the other claim limitations.
However, this is only possibly if the carrier element has a sufficient radial thickness, and thus volume and mass, such that the expanded carrier element will exert a forced on the reduced material thickness in the region of the shoulder of the first ring so it is more easily deformed by the carrier element.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the drawing objections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-20, filed 10/14/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-18 has been withdrawn.
However, applicant argued how the carrier element has to have a sufficient radial thickness, and thus volume and mass, such that the expanded carrier element will exert a forced on the reduced material thickness in the region of the shoulder of the ring so it is more easily deformed by the carrier element but does not make the feature clear in the claims.
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 AIMEE T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 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 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.
/AIMEE TRAN NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617