DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response filed 12/23/2025 has been entered. Claim 3 is cancelled and the subject matter thereof incorporated into claim 1. Claims 1-2 and 4-16 are pending. The previous 112b rejections are withdrawn due to amendment.
Applicant attempted to traverse the examiner’s taking of Official notice that “it is common for oil sensors to be used for grease or vice versa”. Applicant’s traversal argument is merely “oil and grease are not the same and they have different properties”. The procedures regarding Official notice or “common knowledge” / “well known” assertions are set forth in MPEP 2144.03. To traverse a factual assertion / Official notice by the examiner, applicant must “specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art”. In the initial taking of Official notice, the examiner provided explicit reasoning as to why “it is common for oil sensors to be used for grease or vice versa, depending on the type of oil / grease”. Specifically, the examiner stated “[o]ne may find greases with NLGI grades of 0, 00, 000, or even finer, such as the "quadruple zero" designation for extremely thin greases used in firearms, while standard greases are typically NLGI 2. You can also make a thinner grease by mixing a standard NLGI 2 grease with a lower-viscosity oil.” Firstly, the differing properties of differing oils is equal or greater than the difference between oil and grease. Secondly, the only difference between oil and grease is that a thickener is present. Grease is/comprises oil, but with a thickener present. This however, does not mean that grease is always thicker than oil. As set forth in the examiner’s reasoning, there are greases such as those of the designation NLGI 000 or even "quadruple zero". These are consistencies set forth by the National Lubricating Grease Institute. NLGI 000 is already a fluid/liquid (not a semi-fluid). It may be held that applicant did not adequately traverse the taking of Official notice since applicant did not specifically point out the supposed error (i.e., did not point out error(s) in the examiner’s reasoning for taking Official notice); however, in the spirit of compact prosecution, the examiner provides Discenzo (US 6196057 B1) as teaching it is known that the same sensor/probe may be used on oil or grease (Col. 18, Lines 55-64; claim 13). Pursuant to MPEP 2144.03 D, since this reference is merely provided as directly corresponding evidence to support the prior common knowledge finding, this Office action may be made final.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Fitch and Robison have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the response, applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine Fitch and Robison. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the examiner explicitly stated the motivation would be to “yield increased sealing and prevent accidental removal or slippage after insertion”. Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument persuasive.
On page 9 of the response, applicant argues that Fitch is directed to an assembly such that the probe is removed after use and subject to multiple instances of insertion and removal into and out of the grommet. Applicant alleges that incorporating the protrusions of Robison may result in increased resistance or even the inability to insert the probe (allegedly rendering the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose). In response, the examiner firstly notes that Fitch does not teach that the probe is removed after every use. Fitch merely teaches that the probe is removable and insertable. Secondly, Fitch even teaches ([0031]) an embodiment in which “the rod 166 of the probe 164 may be constructed of a similar material as that used for machine components of interest. The rod 166 of the probe 164 may then be used as an indicator of how the machine fluid 94 is affecting the machine components. For example, the rod 166 of the probe 164 may be made of bronze and gears in the machine 92 may be made of bronze. Then, if the bronze rod 166 of the probe 164 is adversely affected by the machine fluid 94, this may indicate that the bronze gears are also being adversely affected by the machine fluid 94. In one example, the rod 166 of the probe 164 may be iron or steel which rusts in the presence of water to indicate the presence of water in the machine fluid 94.” This clearly teaches that the probe may be placed into the grommet and left indefinitely or until it shows / detects a deterioration or issue with the oil. Lastly, the examiner notes that the projections need not be huge and sharp such as to cause the issues that applicant alleges. The projections may be sufficiently sized to help increase the seal and/or prevent the probe from unintentionally moving after placement, but not so large or so shaped as to interfere with the insertion or cause wear of the probe and/or grommet. Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument persuasive.
On page 9 of the response, applicant argues that the incorporation of the protrusions of Robison into the device of Fitch “would wear out the probe and/or grommet of Fitch due to the repeated insertion and removal”. In response, the examiner firstly notes that Fitch does not teach that the probe is removed after every use. Fitch merely teaches that the probe is removable and insertable. Secondly, Fitch even teaches ([0031]) an embodiment in which “the rod 166 of the probe 164 may be constructed of a similar material as that used for machine components of interest. The rod 166 of the probe 164 may then be used as an indicator of how the machine fluid 94 is affecting the machine components. For example, the rod 166 of the probe 164 may be made of bronze and gears in the machine 92 may be made of bronze. Then, if the bronze rod 166 of the probe 164 is adversely affected by the machine fluid 94, this may indicate that the bronze gears are also being adversely affected by the machine fluid 94. In one example, the rod 166 of the probe 164 may be iron or steel which rusts in the presence of water to indicate the presence of water in the machine fluid 94.” This clearly teaches that the probe may be placed into the grommet and left indefinitely or until it shows / detects a deterioration or issue with the oil. Lastly, the examiner notes that the projections need not be huge and sharp or cause issues that applicant alleges. The projections may be sufficiently sized to help increase the seal and/or prevent the probe from unintentionally moving after placement, but not so large or so shaped as to interfere with the insertion or cause wear of the probe and/or grommet. Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument persuasive.
On page 10 of the response, applicant states that “[t]he Examiner called the Applicant before the issuance of the present (first) Office Action. The Examiner indicated the present application would be allowed if dependent claims 3 and 4 were incorporated into claim 1. As this response amends claim 1 to include claim 3 and claim 4 depends from claim 1, Applicant submits that claim 4 should be indicated as allowable in the next action.” In response, the examiner notes that a patent examiner is not bound by a prior indication of allowable subject matter if new, more pertinent prior art is discovered. No claim has been indicated as allowable in any official or documented correspondence. However, even if a claim is indicated as allowable in an Office action, a subsequent Office action may reject the claim based on new, more pertinent prior art that is discovered. If these two hypothetical Office actions are immediately subsequent to one another (i.e., with the first action being non-final), it would usually be improper to make the second action final (with rare exceptions such as an IDS between the Office actions containing the prior art). However, as any verbal indication of allowable subject matter was before the first Office action, no claims were indicated as allowable in the first Office action, and new, more pertinent prior art was discovered prior to the first Office action, this second Office action may be made final with all claims (i.e., including claim 4) being rejected by prior art. Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument persuasive.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitch et al. (US 20200041069 A1, prior art of record) in view of Robison et al. (US 20230061380 A1, prior art of record) and Discenzo (US 6196057 B1).Regarding claim 1:Fitch teaches (e.g., FIG. 3) an installation structure for installing a grease sensor, the installation structure comprising:
a housing having a through-hole (hole in which 112 resides); a resilient grommet (112) installed in said through-hole, the resilient grommet having an installation hole (hole in 112 through which 166 passes); a base (e.g., 168; [0030]-[0031]); and a probe (166) extending from the base, the probe being inserted into said installation hole such that the end of the probe extends into the interior of the housing to contact oil inside the housing, wherein an inner surface of the resilient grommet is resiliently pressed against an outer surface of the probe to form a tightly sealing interface (e.g., [0032])Fitch fails to teach:
wherein the outer surface of the probe is provided with a plurality of sealing projections, against which the inner surface of the resilient grommet is resiliently pressed to form a winding sealing interfaceRobison teaches:
wherein the outer surface is provided with a plurality of sealing projections (FIGS. 1-2, protrusions of 128 which protrude against 122; also seen in FIG. 7), against which the inner surface of the resilient grommet (122) is resiliently pressed to form a winding sealing interface
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sealing projections of Robison in the device of Fitch to yield increased sealing and prevent accidental removal or slippage after insertion.
Fitch teaches the sensor being an oil sensor rather than explicitly teaching it as a “grease” sensor. The examiner previously took Official notice that it is common for oil sensors to be used for grease or vice versa. Applicant traversed. The examiner provides, as set forth in the response to arguments section above, Discenzo (US 6196057 B1) as teaching it is known that the same sensor/probe may be used on oil or grease (Col. 18, Lines 55-64; claim 13). Pursuant to MPEP 2144.03 D, since this reference is merely provided as directly corresponding evidence to support the prior common knowledge finding.
Regarding claim 2:Fitch, Robison, and Discenzo teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Fitch also teaches:
wherein the outer surface of the resilient grommet is provided with an annular recess, and the portion around the through-hole of the housing extends into the annular recess(FIGS. 2-3 - grommet 112)
Regarding claim 7:Fitch, Robison, and Discenzo teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Robison teaches:
wherein the plurality of sealing projections are triangular, trapezoidal, rectangular or semi-circular in cross-section(FIG. 1, FIG. 6A, FIG. 6B)
Regarding claim 9:Fitch, Robison, and Discenzo teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Fitch also teaches:
wherein the resilient grommet is made of oil-resistant elastomeric material(e.g., [0032])
Regarding claim 10:Fitch, Robison, and Discenzo teach all the limitations of claim 9, as mentioned above.Fitch also teaches:
wherein the oil-resistant elastomeric material is rubber ([0032])Fitch fails to explicitly teach:
silicone rubber, fluoro rubber or thermosetting resin
However, the examiner takes Official notice (now applicant admitted prior art pursuant to MPEP 2144.03 C, second paragraph) that silicone rubber is common and well-known in the art for rubber grommets.
Regarding claim 16:Fitch, Robison, and Discenzo teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Fitch also teaches:
a installation method for a grease sensor using the installation structure according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), the method comprising: forming the through-hole on the housing; mounting the resilient grommet in the through-hole; and pressing the probe of the grease sensor into the installation hole of the resilient grommet until the end of the probe extends into the interior of the housing to contact the grease therein, wherein the inner surface of the resilient grommet is resiliently pressed against the outer surface of the probe to form a tightly sealing interface(These steps are inherent in the formation of the device set forth in the claim 1 rejection above)
Claims 4-6, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitch et al. (US 20200041069 A1, prior art of record) in view of Robison et al. (US 20230061380 A1, prior art of record) and Discenzo (US 6196057 B1) and further in view of Fessele et al. (US 20070216105 A1, prior art of record).Regarding claim 4:Fitch, Robison, and Discenzo teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Fitch also teaches:
wherein the probe has a first limiting surface (FIG. 2 - bottom surface of head 168) pressed against the outer surface of the resilient grommet Fitch fails to teach:
a second limiting surface pressed against the inner surface of the resilient grommetFessele teaches:
a second limiting surface (FIG. 3 - the part of 42 pressed against 16; alternatively, the part of 26 pressed against 34) pressed against the inner surface
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second limiting surface, as taught by Fessele, in the device of Fitch to yield increased sealing, prevent accidental removal or slippage after insertion, and provide indexing to ensure the probe is at the intended depth / position.
Regarding claim 5:Fitch, Robison, Discenzo, and Fessele teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Fitch also teaches:
wherein a first step surface perpendicular to the axial direction of the probe is formed between the probe and the base of the grease sensor, and the first step surface is pressed against the outer surface of the resilient grommet as the first limiting surface (FIG. 2 - bottom surface of head 168)
Regarding claim 6:Fitch, Robison, Discenzo, and Fessele teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 4 rejection above, Fitch and Fessele teach:
wherein the end of the probe is provided with a limiting projection protruding outward from the outer surface, and a second step surface perpendicular to the axial direction is formed between the side of the limiting projection near the housing and the outer surface of the probe, and the second step surface is pressed against the inner surface of the resilient grommet as the second limiting surface (Fessele FIG. 3 - the part of 42 pressed against 16; alternatively, the part of 26 pressed against 34)
Regarding claim 11:Fitch, Robison, Discenzo, and Fessele teach all the limitations of claim 6, as mentioned above.Fitch also teaches:
wherein the resilient grommet is made of oil-resistant elastomeric material(e.g., [0032])
Regarding claim 12:Fitch, Robison, Discenzo, and Fessele teach all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Fitch also teaches:
wherein the oil-resistant elastomeric material is rubberFitch fails to explicitly teach:
silicone rubber, fluoro rubber or thermosetting resin
However, the examiner takes Official notice (now applicant admitted prior art pursuant to MPEP 2144.03 C, second paragraph) that silicone rubber is common and well-known in the art for rubber grommets.
Regarding claim 14:Fitch, Robison, Discenzo, and Fessele teach all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 4 rejection above, Fitch and Fessele teach:
a installation method for a grease sensor using the installation structure according to claim 12 (see claim 12 rejection above), the method comprising: forming the through-hole on the housing; mounting the resilient grommet in the through-hole; and pressing the probe of the grease sensor into the installation hole of the resilient grommet until the end of the probe extends into the interior of the housing to contact the grease therein, wherein the inner surface of the resilient grommet is resiliently pressed against the outer surface of the probe to form a tightly sealing interface(These steps are inherent in the formation of the device set forth in the claim 12 rejection above)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitch et al. (US 20200041069 A1, prior art of record) in view of Robison et al. (US 20230061380 A1, prior art of record) and Discenzo (US 6196057 B1) and further in view of Chou (US 8471161 B2, prior art of record).Regarding claim 8:Fitch, Robison, and Discenzo teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Fitch and Robison fail to teach:
wherein the plurality of sealing projections are two annular projections having a right-angled triangular cross-section, with one right-angled side of the right-angled triangle facing the housing and the beveled side backing away from the housingChou teaches:
wherein the plurality of sealing projections are two annular projections having a right-angled triangular cross-section, with one right-angled side of the right-angled triangle facing the housing and the beveled side backing away from the housing(FIG. 4 - 43, 44)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use projections with right-angled triangular cross-sections, as taught by Chou, in the device of Fitch to yield better grip and prevent unintended movement (see Chou FIG. 1 vs. FIG. 4).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitch et al. (US 20200041069 A1, prior art of record) in view of Robison et al. (US 20230061380 A1, prior art of record), Discenzo (US 6196057 B1), and Fessele et al. (US 20070216105 A1, prior art of record) and further in view of Schulz et al. (EP 2657554 A1, prior art of record).Regarding claim 13:Fitch, Robison, Discenzo, and Fessele teach all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 4 rejection above, Fitch and Fessele teach:
a bearing (Fitch - e.g., [0017]) structure having the installation structure for installing an grease sensor according to claim 12 (see claim 12 rejection above),Fitch fails to teach:
wherein the bearing structure comprises: a rotating shaft; an inner ring fixedly attached to the rotating shaft; an outer ring fixedly attached to the housing; a rolling element rotatably disposed between the inner ring and the outer ring to provide a rotational support; and a gap between the housing and the rotating shaft being filled with grease, the probe of the grease sensor contacting the grease to detect its conditionSchulz teaches (FIG. 1):
wherein the bearing structure comprises: a rotating shaft (9); an inner ring (4) fixedly attached to the rotating shaft; an outer ring (5) fixedly attached to the housing (3); a rolling element (6) rotatably disposed between the inner ring and the outer ring to provide a rotational support; and a gap (gap between top 4 and 3, into which 11 / 15 is inserted) between the housing and the rotating shaft being filled with grease, the probe (15) of the grease sensor contacting the grease to detect its condition (e.g., [0030]-[0033], etc.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of Fetch in a structure with a rotating bearing and shaft, as taught by Schulz, to monitor the lubricant properties in a lubricated rotational shaft to prevent damage to the components. This is merely an intended use for the device of Fitch.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitch et al. (US 20200041069 A1, prior art of record) in view of Robison et al. (US 20230061380 A1, prior art of record) and Discenzo (US 6196057 B1) and further view of Schulz et al. (EP 2657554 A1, prior art of record).Regarding claim 15:Fitch, Robison, and Discenzo teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Fitch also teaches:
a bearing (Fitch - e.g., [0017]) structure having the installation structure for installing an grease sensor according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above),Fitch fails to teach:
wherein the bearing structure comprises: a rotating shaft; an inner ring fixedly attached to the rotating shaft; an outer ring fixedly attached to the housing; a rolling element rotatably disposed between the inner ring and the outer ring to provide a rotational support; and a gap between the housing and the rotating shaft being filled with grease, the probe of the grease sensor contacting the grease to detect its conditionSchulz teaches (FIG. 1):
wherein the bearing structure comprises: a rotating shaft (9); an inner ring (4) fixedly attached to the rotating shaft; an outer ring (5) fixedly attached to the housing (3); a rolling element (6) rotatably disposed between the inner ring and the outer ring to provide a rotational support; and a gap (gap between top 4 and 3, into which 11 / 15 is inserted) between the housing and the rotating shaft being filled with grease, the probe (15) of the grease sensor contacting the grease to detect its condition (e.g., [0030]-[0033], etc.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of Fetch in a structure with a rotating bearing and shaft, as taught by Schulz, to monitor the lubricant properties in a lubricated rotational shaft to prevent damage to the components. This is merely an intended use for the device of Fitch.
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). The examiner notes that the “new grounds of rejection” is merely due to the incorporation of previous claim 3 into claim 1, changing the scope of other claims (e.g., claims that did not previously require the limitations of previous claim 3).
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 Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855