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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 25, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, see filing dated January 23, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
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, each channel formed as a single annular recess (clm 1, see rejection under 35 USC 112 below) 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “internal annular surface” and “external annular surface” need antecedent basis in the disclosure, the disclosure uses the phrase “perimeter region” when referencing these features.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 8, - -the- - should be inserted between “to” and “at”.
Claim 3, line 4, “wherein at” should be - -wherein the at- -.
Claim 6, line 2, in the amendment Applicant has placed 5 in brackets but appears to have also underlined the brackets, while also using one set of brackets around 3 and underlining 3. Deletions should either be placed in double brackets or have a strikethrough while additions should only be underlined. While it’s clear in this case the intent is to make the claim dependent from claim 3 all feature amendments should use strikethroughs or double brackets only for deletions and underlining only for additions.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 6-10 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “central annular channel”, specifically the term “channel” relative to this phrase, in claim 1 and 2 is used by the claims to reference feature 122, this is a flat annular surface that is actually raised relative to the rest of the inner surface while the accepted meaning of “channel” relates to passageways or grooves, a flat annular surface does not define a passageway or a groove. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The channel is actual formed by the surface 122 in combination with the seals R, however this is referenced as the chamber by the claims. How is an annular surface that is actually raised relative to the channels on the left and right of 122 considered a channel? If there is a distinct channel then where is the intermediate lubricant chamber located? In this case surface 122 is not a channel on its own, based on the standard definition, but rather the lubrication chamber is a channel formed by using the seals and the annular internal surface of the fastening ring, this relationship needs to be made clear in the claim.
However, the amendment to the claim further makes this issue unclear because the claim now states that “each channel being formed as a single annular recess” however surface 122 is not an annular recess but rather a flat surface that ultimately defines the inner surface that the first and second channels are recessed into. How is surface 122 being considered a channel and more specifically a recess?
Claim 1 now states that the second seal “cooperates” with both the internal annular surface and the rolling bearing to define the chamber, however it is unclear how the seal “cooperates” with the bearing since the two parts are spaced apart and this recitation make the scope of the claim unclear. With regards to the scope, the claim is drawn to the standalone fastening ring which does not include a bearing but the claim is defining the chamber based on the combination with “an adjacent rolling bearing” which appears to be now claiming the combination and the preamble should reflect a bearing assembly. Within the context of the standalone fastening ring the seal and the posterior annular section (141) form the chamber when placed against the bearing, the claim should be amended to reflect this and the recitation of “cooperates” in this clause (lines 20-22) is ultimately redundant of the previous clause which already states that both seals cooperate with the internal annular surface.
Regarding claim 1, the use of “and/or” in line 29 also renders the scope of the claim unclear since being read using the “and” the claim would be stating that both perforations can deliver lubricant to both locations, how is this possible? Within the context of the disclosure there is one hole or perforation for each chamber, however the use of “and/or” makes the claim read as if both perforations go to the same chamber or both can go to both chambers, neither of which are part of the disclosed invention. In this case it is the use of “and/or” that is causing the confusion, the claim should be amended to define where each individual perforation extends to in order to be consistent with the disclosure. Upon addressing this issue the dependent claims should be removed as claims such as 2 and 3 correctly define the relationship as illustrated.
Claim 2 as amended now states that the central channel is “positioned radially” in the intermediate chamber, however it is unclear how it can be positioned radially in the chamber when it forms the chamber. The chamber is formed by the two seals and surface 122, which Applicant calls a channel, see rejection above. While this is not a channel the surface still ultimately defines the chamber and thus it is unclear how something that defines another feature would be “positioned” relative to that same feature.
Regarding claim 6, it is now unclear how many perforations are being positively set forth. Claim 1 as amended is defining a first and a second, and while the use of “and/or” causes confusion as noted above, this appears to be attempting to define one perforation per chamber, however claim 6 as drafted appears to be setting forth a second distinct perforation for this chamber. In the claims how many perforations are being positively set forth and intended to be connected to the rolling bearing chamber, if more than one where is support for this?
Collectively in the claims, with regards to the perforations it appears that Applicant’s intent might have been to draft claim 1 broadly to cover both the inlet/outlet in the intermediate chamber or the two inlets, and possibly any combination of the three by the use of “and/or”, however this is what causes confusion later as the dependent claims specifically call out other lubrication perforations without specifically linking them to any of the ones recited in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 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:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not disclose the claimed combination of a fastening ring with three distinct channels/chambers with the seal configuration defined by the claim and the perforations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 25, 2026 have been fully considered but, with regards to any remaining issues, they are not persuasive. All other issues argued regarding previous rejections are moot, however the amendment has further necessitated new grounds of rejection addressed above.
With regards to “channel” Applicant’s argument does not address the lexicographer issue raised above. Applicant previously argued that that the term is addressed, however the instant amendment and the previous amendments to the claim does not define the annular channel in any manner that would clarify the meaning of the term and it still reads as if there is a third distinct groove or passageway within the fastening ring itself while there is only two actually disclosed, the two that hold the sealing elements. However, in the case of the current amendment the claim now explicitly states that each channel is a recess, this is simply not the case, there are only two recesses, one for each seal and then a flat annular surface that extends between the third recess, Applicant wishes for this flat annular surface to be a channel/recess but this is inconsistent with the definition of the term and using the term(s) correctly in one instance and then differently in another is not permitted as this inherently raises confusion with how the terms need to be treated within the claim and at what times to treat Applicant as their own lexicographer and when not to. Because of this the lexicographer issue previously raised remains unresolved.
Either there are two channels which are the recesses that hold the seals or there are three channels which are separated by the seals but these three channels would not be recesses. There are not three channels all of which are recesses as currently defined by the claim.
What is shown is an inner surface with two recesses spaced apart by a surface, or a surface 122 bordered by two recesses, the seals in the recesses along with the inner surface at 122 define either a chamber or a channel but there are not three channels all of which are recesses. Ultimately in the drawings there are two recesses each with a diameter greater than the inner most surface, the seals are then placed in the recesses to form the intermediate channel and the bearing chamber when placed in combination with the bearing, this is what needs to be reflected in the claim and any new phrasing used in the claim must have antecedent basis in the disclosure.
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