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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20, 2026 has been entered.
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: “transitions” (used as a noun, see rejection under 35 USC 112b below) and “smooth and even” need antecedent basis in the specification.
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 1-4 and 7-12 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 addition to claim 1 first states “the sliding surfaces being connected to the outer raceway by means of respective radially outwardly convex connecting surfaces” which would be in reference to surface 35 which is between the raceway and the sliding surface. However, the claim then states “transitions between the connecting surfaces and the sliding surfaces” which would appear to claiming a fourth distinct surface section, a transition. This would result in the claim defining, in order, a raceway, a convex connecting surface, a transition and then the sliding surface, however it is unclear how there can be a transition between the parts when the sliding surface is “connected to the outer raceway” by the convex connecting surface. The drafting of the claim appears is using transitions as a noun while the intent would be to use it as a verb and in the case of the term transitions the noun and verb usage of the word have distinct meanings. It is suggested that the claim be rephrased to state that the connecting surface transitions into the sliding surface.
The term “smooth and even” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smooth and even” 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. The term “smooth” on its own is relative however taken in combination with “even” it is further unclear what surface features this is limiting the claim to and the specification does not use or define this phrase. The Remarks attempt to clarify the meaning as defining a surface free of steps, however the claim would either need to state this in a manner that avoids the relative phrasing or the specification can be amended to provide antecedent basis for the recitation and provide a clear definition for it.
Based on the remarks the Applicant is attempting to define a configuration of a raceway, a convex connecting surface and a sliding surface with the convex connecting surface forming a continuous surface, one without steps or corners, with the sliding surface and the claim will be treated as such for the purpose of examination.
Regarding claim 9, assuming that “transitions” is treated as a verb which appears to be Applicant’s intent it is unclear how claim 9 would be further limiting since in order for two surfaces to transition into each other there would be no connecting region or surface therebetween and thus claim 1 would have the same surface configuration as stated in claim 9. If the intent is for transitions to be treated as a noun how would the connecting surface extend between the two other surfaces when there is actually another intermediate surface therebetween? Upon addressing the issue in claim 1 above claim 9 should be reviewed in order to determine if it is further limiting or not prior to filing an amendment.
Claims 11 and 12 also use the phrase “smooth and even” which is a relative term or phrasing as explained above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 7-12 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 indication of allowable subject matter is being made on the assumption that the amendment to the claim is attempting to define, in order from the inside of the bearing to an axial end, an inner ring that includes a raceway, a radially outwardly convex connecting surface and a sliding surface, wherein the transition between the connecting surface and the sliding surface is one that is continuous or without any breaks, steps or corner (smooth and even). The prior art of record does not teach the combination of the bearing and seal assembly with the sliding surface being inclined with respect to the axis in a decreasing manner from the raceway to an axial end and the lips having contact edges with the sliding surface that also define decreasing diameters along the same axial direction as the sliding surface and the inner ring further including the radially outwardly convex connecting surface that defines collectively with the sliding surface a bearing ring surface that is continuous without any steps, breaks or corners thus defining a “smooth and even” surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed February 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC 112, see above.
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
Prosecution Insights