DETAILED ACTION
Amendment filed 29 January 2026 have been entered. Claim 24 was added. Claims 1-24 are pending. Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome all 112 rejections and objections of the previous office action.
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: the originally filed specification does not provide antecedent basis for the terminology “distributor pistons,” Applicant’s originally filed claim 15 is the basis of support for the element in the originally filed disclosure. However, the term does not appear in applicant’s specification.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant uses the term “park brake mechanism” in claims 9, 12, and 13. The term “park” is not defined by the specification or the claims, and has several meanings. A plain meaning of the term “park” is to “bring to a halt.” The plain meaning of the term “brake” is “a device for slowing or stopping a vehicle.” The terms are synonyms and therefore, the term “park” redundantly describes the function of the second term “brake.”
Applicant has not disclosed or explained how the term “park” adds any additional meaning or structure to the term “brake.” Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the term “park” as redundant and not adding any additional meaning or structure to the term “brake.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
NOT INVOKED DESPITE PRESENCE
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“park brake mechanism” in claims 9, 12, and 13. Claim 9 claims that the park brake mechanism includes “brake discs” which provide sufficient structure to accomplish the function of braking.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
742
1124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Applicant’s fig 1
Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13, and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noel (US 5,115,890).
PNG
media_image2.png
946
874
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Noel fig 1
Claim 1, Noel discloses a hydrostatic radial piston unit (fig 1) of the cam-lobe type of construction comprising:
- a non-rotary, stationary shaft (hub 35, hub 35 is fixed to cylinder block 3, c 3 ln 58; block 3 has extension 4 connected to cover 9, c 3 ln 3-4, 11-12; cover 9 is stationary; cover 9 is a part of the non-rotating frame or chassis of a vehicle, c 4 ln 59-60) defining a rotational axis of the hydrostatic radial piston unit;
- a non-rotary, stationary casing housing (first cover 9, cover 9 is a part of the non-rotating frame or chassis of a vehicle, c 4 ln 59-60) the shaft in a torque proof connection;
- a cylinder block arranged stationary (cylinder block 3; block 3 has extension 4 connected to cover 9, c 3 ln 3-4, 11-12; cover 9 is stationary; cover 9 is a part of the non-rotating frame or chassis of a vehicle, c 4 ln 59-60) in torque-proof connection with the stationary shaft on a front end portion of the stationary shaft protruding from the stationary casing;
- a rotary casing (casing part 1a / 1b; a cam 44 is machined into casing 1b, c 4 ln 8-9; the cam rotates c 1 ln 55-57, 68 – c 2 ln 1) which is rotary around the rotational axis and surrounds the cylinder block at the protruding front end of the stationary shaft;
- exact two roller bearings (roller bearings 5) which are arranged as a pair of roller bearings next to or in a close proximity to each other, wherein
the pair of roller bearings (roller bearings 5) rotary supports the rotary casing against the stationary casing, and is disposed in the axial area adjacent to the cylinder block side facing toward the stationary casing, surrounds at least partially a hollow shaft part of a rotary distributor (internal distribution valve 39, valve rotates, c 1 ln 31-36; fig 1 shows bearings 5 radially outside of 39; this is the same arrangement as applicant’s fig 1 bearings 90 and distributor 70), and is arranged in an axial overlapping area in which the stationary casing and the rotary casing overlap (fig 1 shows this axial overlap).
Claim 2, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 1, wherein the rotary distributor comprises a disc-shaped part (plane face 42 of internal fluid distributor valve 39; plane face 42 is a face that radiates outward orthogonally, and is therefore round and flat, and meets the plain meaning of disc-shaped under a BRI) being in torque proof connection with the rotary casing, wherein the pair of roller bearings is arranged radially outside of the hollow shaft part of the rotary distributor(fig 1 shows bearings 5 outside the cylindrical part of distributor valve 39).
Claim 3, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 1, wherein the stationary casing (9) comprises an extension (bolts 10) extending in axial direction beyond a sealing plane (fig 1 shows bolts 10 extend beyond the plane of the seal formed by seal ring 13; implicitly sealing ring 13 creates a seal as nominatively sealing is its function; examiner notes this sealing plane is in accord with applicants sealing plane 35) into the volume of the rotary casing (bolts 10 are within the diameter and volume of casing 1a / 1b) and radially between the hollow shaft part of the rotary distributor and the rotary casing (fig 1 shows the bolts 10 are between cylindrical part of valve 39 and rotary casing 1a/1b), wherein the extension is provided to accommodate the inner shells of the pair of roller bearings (the bolts 10 provides sufficient space for the inner runs of bearings 5 to be radially outside of the bolts 10; this meets the plain meaning of accommodate, which means “to make sufficient space for”).
Claim 4, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 3, wherein the extension (bolt 10) is provided as additional part (head of bolt 10) and is attached to the stationary casing (fig 1 shows head of bolt 10 attaches to far side of cover 9).
Claim 5, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 1, wherein the pair of roller bearings (5) is positioned at the same axial position a similar torque transmission device (bolt 75, fixing flange 74, toothed wheel 76) at an outer circumferential surface of the rotary casing (fig 1 shows all elements outside of casing 1a/1b and near to the axial position of roller bearings 5).
Claim 9, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 1, comprising a park brake mechanism with brake discs (brake disks 26 and 8, c 3 ln 36-45; brake disks meets the plain meaning of brake mechanism) located in the overlapping area between the stationary casing (3) and the rotary casing (1a; fig 1 shows 26/8 between 3 and 1a) and fixed alternatively to the stationary casing (3 is connected to 8, c 3 ln 37-38) and the rotary casing (1a is connected to 26 via second cover 14-15, c 3 ln 42-44), wherein the park brake mechanism comprises a blocking position in which the brake discs are pressed against each other and the rotary casing is fixed in relation to the stationary casing (8 and 26 are in a position where they are pressed into contact to apply braking, c 6 ln 39-41) and an open position in which the brake discs are not pressed against each other and the rotary casing can rotate in relation to the stationary casing (8 and 26 are apart for rotation of casing 1a, c 3 ln 39-41).
Claim 10, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 9, wherein the pre-tensioning force of a disc spring (resilient washer 20, c 5 ln 1-2) can be transmitted to the brake discs (26/8) by means of a disc-shaped brake piston (cover 14) and by means of brake pins (fig 3, studs 78, c 5 ln 8) extending in an axial direction (studs 78 extends along their axis) between the brake piston and the brake discs (fig 3 shows that a portion of stud 78 is closer to brake disks 26/8 in relation to portions of cover 14).
Claim 11, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 9, wherein the at least one brake pin (cover 14 has segments 23 which position limit the central part 15, c 3 ln 30-34) comprises a portion with higher diameter (cover 14 segment 23 is outside the diameter of brake piston 15 and into groove 24, id.) at the end facing towards [a] brake piston (15).
Claim 13, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 10, wherein the park brake mechanism can be switched into its open position by supplying a hydraulic pressure acting on a release surface of the disc-shaped brake piston which generates a counterforce to the pre- tensioning force of the disc spring (hydraulic pressure in 25 moves 14/15 to compress disk spring 20 which de tensions brake disks 26 and 8; c 4 ln 66-c 5 ln 2).
Claim 14, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 1, wherein a cam lobe (cam 44 inside casing part 1b, c 4 ln 8-9) surface is integrally formed with the rotary casing (1A / 1B).
Claim 15, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 1, wherein distributor springs (retaining springs 29, c 3 ln 45) and/or distributor pistons (studs 40, c 3 ln 65-68) are received in axially oriented holes in the rotary casing (spring 29 and studs 40 are received in central voids 34 of the rotary casing 1a and casing 1b which are oriented along central axis; first of two alternatives) or in the disc-shaped part (studs 40 are oriented in holes which enter valve 39 along the axis of the studs 40; second of two alternatives) to urge the rotary distributor against a lateral surface of the cylinder block (plane face 42 of valve 39 is made to bear against plane face 43 of cylinder block 3, c 3 ln 64 - c 4 ln 8).
Claim 16, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 15, wherein the axially oriented holes receiving the distributor springs (springs 29) and/or the distributor pistons (studs 40) are arranged in the recesses of the cam-lobe-surface in the rotary casing (fig 1 depicts 29 / 40 are within the central void 34 which is within the radius of the two cam surfaces on surface 1b; the central void 34 meets the plain meaning of “recess” under a BRI because the central void 34 is a hollow within the center of the cam surface; the plain meaning of “recess” is “a hollow place inside something”) or in an elevation formed in the disc-shaped part of the distributor (fig 1 depicts studs 40 are at the apex of the slope of distributor valve 39 toward the center).
Claim 17, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 6, wherein the cylinder block comprises one or more rows of cylinder bores (fig 1 shows two rows of cylinders, the top of fig 1 shows cylinders on a plane further to the left and the bottom of fig 1 shows cylinders on a different plane to the right) and radially reciprocating working pistons which are arranged in circumferential direction adjacent (the two rows of cylinders are on planes which are adjacent to each other, first of two claimed alternatives) or staggered (the pistons on the left plane and the right plane are staggered and not in sync; if the planes were in sync fig 1 would shows the left and right pistons simultaneously at the top cam or the bottom cam, however fig 1 does not show the piston in a synchronously aligned; second of two claimed alternatives) to each other and can interact with the cam-lobe surface (fig 1 shows the left and right pistons contacting the cam surface on the inner radius of casing 1b).
Claim 18, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 1, wherein a second cylinder block (fig 1 shows two rows of cylinders, the top of fig 1 shows cylinders on a plane further to the left and the bottom of fig 1 shows cylinders on a different plane to the right; under a BRI of the word “block” meaning collection, the second row of cylinders constitutes a second block of cylinders), whose working pistons interact with the cam-lobe surface (inner surface of 1b) is arranged parallel to the first cylinder block on the stationary shaft (fig 1 depicts the two rows in parallel on the hub 35).
Claim 19, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 18, wherein the number of cylinder bores and radially reciprocating working pistons of the second cylinder block differs from the number of cylinder bores and radially reciprocating working pistons of the first cylinder block (the group of cylinders bores and pistons in the first row / group are different than the group of bores and pistons in the second row / group; the term “number” is interpreted under a BRI to refer to the assignment of an identity number), and a second circumferential cam lobe surface with which the working pistons of the second cylinder block can interact, is arranged in the front casing on its radial inner side (fig 1 depicts the second row of piston on a second cam surface axially next to the first cam surface on inner radius of 1b).
Claim 20, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 19, wherein the second circumferential cam lobe surface is formed integrally with the front casing (fig 1 depicts the cam surface on the integrated interior surface of 1b).
Claim 21, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 1, wherein a reinforcing front cover (fig 1, cover 1a) is attached to a front end of the rotary casing (cover 1a is at an end of the casing of cover 1a/1b; under a BRI either end may be called a front end), which closes the rotary casing (fig 1 cover 1a reasonably closes the casing by having a smaller diameter than cover 1b, and by connecting to elements like 18 which retain the internals of the machine), wherein the front end and the reinforcing cover are designed such that the reinforcing cover is capable of absorbing forces acting on the rotary casing in radial direction (fig 1, under a BRI, all materials have a strength and will absorb some forces that are applied to it; in this case cover 1a will inherently absorb some forces applied to in radially).
Claim 22, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 21, wherein the reinforcing cover comprises a sleeve-like collar (fig 1, cover 1a has a cylindrical sleeve like portion which surrounds 14/15; which connects to 1b at screws 2) and the rotary casing comprises a complementary shoulder (1b and 1a connect at the shoulder located at screw 2), or vice versa.
Claim 23, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 1, operated as a hydraulic motor (c 2 ln 56) driving a track drive (the first of two alternatives) or wheel (toothed wheel 76, c 4 ln 56-58; the second of two alternatives) of a working machine (vehicle, c 1 ln 16-17; vehicle is capable of work such as transport; work is a broad functional term, under a BRI the utility of said machine could reasonably be considered its work) by means of the torque transmission device (flange 74 and screw 75).
Claim 24, Noel discloses the hydraulic radial piston unit according to claim 1, wherein the roller bearings are arranged in a vicinity of a read end portion of the rotary casing (fig 1 shows bearings 5 are to the right side of rotating casing 1a/1b) and in a vicinity of a front end portion of the stationary casing (fig 1 shows bearings 5 are to the left of stationary casing 9)
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noel in view of Lallier (US 5,435,135).
Claim 6, Noel discloses the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 1, comprising a stationary multiple- speed-control-valve (cylinder capacity selector slide 38, c 4 ln 20-45) switchable between a first position (first of two cylinder capacities, c 4 ln 39-40), in which… cylinder bores of a stationary cylinder block (the higher of the two cylinder capacities) can be supplied with hydraulic fluid under high pressure from a high pressure inlet of the hydrostatic radial piston unit (external duct 58) and a second position (the second/ lower of the two cylinder capacities) in which … the cylinder bores is supplied with fluid under high pressure.
Noel does not disclose the first position provides hydraulic fluid to ALL cylinder bores, and the second position provides hydraulic fluid to ONLY A PORTION of cylinder bores and pairs of cylinder bores are hydraulically short-circuited.
Lallier teaches a dual-capacity hydraulic motor (abstract) which changes capacity of the machine between a high capacity (c 7 ln 50) and a small capacity (c 7 ln 64) by short circuiting hydraulics (c 7 ln 66) using the axial sliding of the distribution valve (c 8 ln 16-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the speed control valve (38) of Noel to change the capacities of the machine by modifying the distribution valve to short circuit the hydraulics as taught by Lallier for the predictable result of achieving the multiple capacities of Noel using shifting of the speed control valve as suggested by Noel.
The combination makes obvious the “the first position provides hydraulic fluid to ALL cylinder bores (Lallier, capacity of all motor bores C1 + C2 are used together, c 7 ln 50), and the second position provides hydraulic fluid to ONLY A PORTION of cylinder bores (Lallier, capacity of C1 is used and C2 is not used because these cylinders are short-circuited, c 7 ln 65) and pairs of cylinder bores are hydraulically short-circuited (Lallier, C2 is short-circuited, c 7 ln 65-66; the short circuited motor M2 comprises a plurality of pistons 15 and cylinder bores / working chambers 16, c 5 ln 21-22, the plurality of working chambers 16 comprises at least 2 cylinders and meets the plain meaning of pair under a BRI). “
After the modification, the combination would have the ability to change the speed of the radial piston unit by changing the capacity of the cylinder block (Noel, two cylinder capacities, c 4 ln 39-40; Lallier, switch between C1 and C1+c2, c 8 ln 8-9), by using a distribution valve (Noel, cylinder capacity selector slide 38, c 4 ln 20-45; Lallier sliding distribution valve, c 8 ln 16-20), which in a first position of the valve (Noel, high capacity, c 4 ln 39-40) uses all cylinder bores (Lallier, C1 + C2), and a second position of the valve (Noel, lower capacity, c 4 ln 39-40) uses only a portion of the cylinders bores (Lallier, C1 but not C2), where pairs of cylinder bores are hydraulically short-circuited in the second position (Lallier, C2 is short-circuited).
Claim 7, Noel in view of Lallier teaches the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 6, wherein the stationary multiple- speed-control-valve (Noel, 38) is arranged in an axial bore (bore 37) in the stationary shaft (shaft / hub 35), wherein the axial bore is preferably coaxially arranged with the longitudinal axis (fig 1 depicts 38 on axis of shaft/hub 35).
Claim 8, Noel in view of Lallier teaches the hydrostatic radial piston unit according to claim 6, wherein the multiple-speed- control-valve is a two-speed-control-valve (Noel, at least two capacities, c 4 ln 20-45; first of two alternatives) or a three-speed-control-valve (second of two alternatives).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Noel does not disclose that the pressure chamber is sealed by a front end and a rear end of the at least one brake pin, such that the bake pin is forced toward the brake piston. The brake pins arranged in this fashion is critical (they provide sealings, par 0028, and provide a connection between the brake discs and the pressure chamber thereby not requiring hydraulic fluid pressure to be supplied to the rotating part, which requires less seals, par 0034) and does not amount to design choice, and there is no motivation to modify the prior art to incorporate said structure or provide said arrangement. Therefore, the sum of these limitations is not disclosed by the prior art and it would not be obvious to combine references in an effort to meet all of the claimed elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Pg 10 of Remarks, applicant argues that Noel does not disclose “the pair of roller bearing … is arranged in an axial overlapping area in which the stationary casing and the rotary casing overlap.” Applicant argues that Noel roller bearings 5 are between the rotary casing 1b and the cylinder block 3 instead of between the rotary casing 1b and the first cover 9.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Noel as well as applicant’s disclosed invention position the bearings 5 between the rotary casing and an extension attachment to the stationary casing 20. Applicant discloses that extension 25 is attached to the stationary casing 20 by screws (Applicant’s published spec par 0021). Noel includes roller bearings 5 outside of the extension bolts 10 which are attached to stationary casing 9. The mapping to the bolts to “an extension” of the stationary casing is clearly explained in the rejection of claim 3. Therefore, Noel meets the claimed invention’s “pair of roller bearings … is arranged in an axial overlapping area in which the stationary casing and the rotary casing overlap.”
Applicant further argues that the cylinder block 3 can not correspond to the “stationary housing” because the cylinder block 3 is fully encompassed by the rotary casings 1A/1B. Applicant’s argument is not consistent with their disclosed invention, because it neglects to consider their disclosure of the claimed “extension” of the stationary casing. Applicant’s disclosed and claimed “extension” of the stationary casing is a separate extension extending beyond the sealing plane (par 0056) that joins the rotating housing with the stationary housing (par 0019-0021). Therefore, the extension is enclosed radially by the rotary casing because it extends into the rotary casing past the sealing plane.
Therefore, Noels bolts (10) and as applicant has alleged Noel’s cylinder block (3) both within the radius of bearings (5) and attached to the stationary casing (9) would both anticipate applicant’s disclosed “extension” and therefore meet claim 1’s “the pair of roller bearing … is arranged in an axial overlapping area in which the stationary casing and the rotary casing overlap.” Therefore the 102 rejection under Noel is maintained.
Similarly, applicant’s arguments against Noel in view of Lallier regarding claims 6 and 8 are only directed toward whether Lallier can cure claim 1, which moot in light of the arguments to maintain the rejection of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3746 /DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746