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 .
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, the varying diameter of the hill portions (see Remarks) 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The listing of reference characters at the end of the specification is not complete, either the list should be complete and include all reference characters used or, since the list is not a requirement in US practice, the list can be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 –
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komatsubara, USP 10,415,573.
Regarding claim 1, Komatsubara discloses a fluid dynamic bearing comprising: a sintered body having a cylindrical shape (see figure 3 and at least column 6, lines 1-6), the sintered body (8) being formed with dynamic pressure generating grooves (8a1) on an inner peripheral surface of the sintered body (8), wherein a ratio D2/D1 of an outer diameter D2 to an inner diameter D1 of the sintered body is 2.5 or less (column 10, line 66-column 11, line 25 which discloses D2 as 6mm and D1 as 3mm, this is a ratio of 2 which meets the claim requirement), the inner diameter D1 of the sintered body is 4mm or less (D1 or the diameter defined by 8a3 is set to be 3mm or less, see column 8, lines 30-38) and differences in relative density among three parts defined by axially trisecting the sintered body are within 3% (the three parts in the instant application is an arbitrary selection of three areas in the sintered body, roughly corresponding to dividing the cylindrical body into three sections, Komatsubara teaches a total density variation within all of the sleeve as being 3% or less, column 12, lines 29-36, regardless how the sleeve is divided if the total fluctuation is controlled to be 3% or less any number of sections compared to each other will have a difference of 3% or less), and density in an axially central portion among the three parts of the sintered body is lower than density in axial end portions among the three parts of the sintered body (this feature is the result of how the sintered body is compressed, in the case of the instant application this is from the axial ends, thus the two axial ends have a slightly higher degree of compression then the center of the bearing element that remains generally consistent during the compacting process, Komatsubara further discloses in column 12, lines 29-43, that the surface layer has a higher density then the central core, as the claim does not define any particular sizing feature for the regions, the first and third region can be considered the surface layer at the axial ends, the density of the compressed surface layer will be greater than the density in the core of the sleeve, central portion, or the average density of the sleeve between the two axial ends).
Regarding claim 2, Komatsubara discloses that an axial length of the sintered body is 4 mm or less (column 8, lines 30-38 discloses an axial length of 6mm or less which anticipates the range of 4mm or less claimed).
Regarding claim 3, Komatsubara discloses that the sintered body comprises a hill portion (the hill portions in the instant application are the ridges between the groove, these same hill portions are shown in Komatsubara at 8a2) rising radially inward with respect to the dynamic pressure generating grooves, and wherein a difference between a radius of a smallest diameter portion and a radius of a largest diameter portion of an inner surface of the hill portion on the inner peripheral surface of the sintered body is 2 µm or less (the specification discloses the inner peripheral surface as being generally cylindrical with the diameter difference being as small as possible, this appears to be setting this particular dimension as a tolerance value from being purely cylindrical, in this case hills are illustrated as defining the cylindrical inner peripheral surface and thus, in an idea situation would have a variation of zero and thus anticipating the claimed range of 2 µm or less). NOTE: if the intent is to have hill portions purposely made with different diameters this aspect of the invention is not illustrated nor is the specification describing such a device. The specification appears to be suggesting that this is some form of manufacturing tolerance, manufacturing tolerances don’t define or limit the claim to any new or novel structure. It is further noted that the current phrasing of the claim reads as if the hill portions have both the diameter portions, if the intent is to actually define a groove depth there would be a radius difference between the generating grooves and the hill portions, this is currently not clearly supported by the specification, if this is the case this feature would be obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 5, Komatsubara discloses a fluid dynamic bearing device (figure 2) comprising: the fluid dynamic bearing (8) according to claim 1 (see above); a shaft member (11) inserted inside an inner periphery of the fluid dynamic bearing (8); and a radial bearing portion (R1 and/or R2, formed between the bearing and the shaft) configured to support the shaft member in a non-contact manner to allow the shaft member to be relatively rotatable, with dynamic pressure action of a lubricating film formed in a radial bearing gap between an inner peripheral surface of the fluid dynamic bearing and the shaft member (fluid dynamic bearings use a lubricant film in the gap, see column 11, line 59-column 12, line 7).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsubara, USP 10,415,573, in view of Kokumai, USP 8,864,381.
Regarding claim 4, Komatsubara further discloses that the inner peripheral surface of the sintered body (8) is formed with: a pair of annular hill portions (8a3) provided at two locations axially separated from each other (one in region A1 and one in region A2, the regions being axial spaced); a plurality of inclined hill portions (8a2) extending axially outward from the annular hill portions (specifically 8a2 on the top of region A1 and 8a2 in the bottom of region A2); the dynamic pressure generating grooves (8a1) provided circumferentially between the plurality of inclined hill portions (8a2).
Komatsubara does not disclose that the pressure generation pattern further includes a cylindrical surface provided in an entire area axially between the pair of annular hill portions, the cylindrical surface having a diameter larger than each of respective inner diameters of the annular hill portions. In other words the area between the two annular hills is a cylindrical surface, without grooves or hills.
Kokumai teaches an alternate fluid dynamic bearing groove pattern wherein between axially inner annular hill portions (6 in the middle of the bearing body 3 in figure 4) there is a cylindrical surface (7) provide in an entire area axially between the pair of hill portions (6), the cylindrical surface having a diameter larger than each of the respective inner diameters of the annular portions (diameter at 7 is greater than the hills/ridges, see column 6, lines 40-58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Komatsubara and use a groove pattern that further includes a cylindrical surface provided in an entire area axially between the pair of annular hill portions, the cylindrical surface having a diameter larger than each of respective inner diameters of the annular hill portions, as taught by Kokumai, since substituting between different known fluid dynamic groove patterns (inclusive of any feature separating adjacent patterns) provides the same predictable result of generating a pressure/lubricant film to support the rotating component relative to the stationary component in the bearing assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the drawing objection, Applicant has filed a new figure to support what is claimed. However, this is a circular feature while the hill portions are G2 and G3 in the disclosure, this circular feature does not match what is shown in other figures. In addition comparing the two radius values illustrated these values appear to be equal in the drawing and thus the drawing still does not illustrate the feature being claimed.
Applicant begins the remarks by providing general summaries of the instant application and the applied reference to Komatsubara but then concludes this summary by stating that “Komatsubara fails to contemplate any problem where a density difference between the axial end portions and the axial central portion…” However, in order to anticipate a claim the applied reference must only meet the structural limitations of the claim, there is no requirement for a reference to disclose the same or similar problem that the instant application is concerned with.
Applicant goes on to state “Komatsubara does not mention the difference in relative density among the three parts” however this is not true. First, it must be acknowledged that the claim does not define the three parts in any structurally limiting manner and thus any applied reference can be arbitrary divided into three zones with any relative size relationship. In this case the surface layers at the axial ends can be considered 2 of the three zones and then everything between these surface layers in the axial direction can be considered the middle or central portion. Because the surface layers are being compressed they are denser than the overall core density of the middle or central portion as explained above.
Applicant further states that “to measure variations in the density ratio of a sintered body, it is necessary to clarify between which specific portions of the sintered body the difference in density ratios is to be obtained”, however this is the point being made in the rejection above. The claim does not define the regions in any particular way. Applicant may be attempting to imply that “trisecting” is meant to require 3 equally sized parts, however “trisecting” is broadly defined as dividing something into three parts and is not necessarily limited to requiring three equal parts. However, even if the recitation does require three equal parts the parts would be two ends which would have three surface layers that are compacted verse a central region which would only have the inner and outer diameter surfaces that are compacted, thus the average density, because of the axial end surfaces of the end region would make the end regions a slightly higher average density, if the total change in density is 3% or less in Komatsubara, as acknowledge by Applicant in the remarks, regardless of how the part is subdivided the device would still anticipate the claim as any part cannot be more than 3% different than the other parts of the device.
Komatsubara discloses the same device and is also concerned about controlling a density aspect within the same range as in the instant application, the only difference appears to be how this feature is being described with Komatsubara focusing on the surface layer where the density is actually changed during compression vs the instant application which is looking at axial regions, however if the intent of Komatsubara is to provide a bearing where a density difference between the surface layer and the core in the whole device is not more than 3% then regardless of how the part is subdivided the subregions would not have a difference in density that exceeds 3%.
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 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