DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification as originally filed does not disclose that the “the adhesive bond is further configured to radially fix the separate bearing seat element”. The specification only discusses fixing the seat element in reference to the axial direction, the specification never mentions fixing the set in the radial direction. Thus, the limitation is considered new matter.
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.
Claims 13-14 and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka U.S. 2018/0156280 in view of Oshikiri U.S. 2017/0234318.
Re clm 13, Iizuka discloses a bearing seat arrangement (at left 20/21, Fig. 1) for an automotive auxiliary device ([0018]), the bearing seat arrangement comprising: a static support structure (at 23); a separate bearing seat element (21) which is press-fitted ([0024]) into the static support structure so as to provide a press-fitted connection.
Iizuka does not disclose an adhesive bond which is configured to axially fix the separate bearing seat element.
Oshikiri teaches a bearing arrangement comprising an adhesive bond (43, Fig. 3-8) which is configured to axially fix the separate bearing seat element to prevent the sleeve from being detached from the support structure ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Iizuka and provide an adhesive bond which is configured to axially fix the separate bearing seat element to prevent the sleeve from being detached from the support structure.
Re clm 14, Iizuka further discloses the static support structure has a thermal expansion coefficient (coefficient of aluminum; [0027]; aluminum has a coefficient of about 23 × 10⁻⁶ /°C), the separate bearing seat element has a thermal expansion coefficient (coefficient of steel; [0027]; steel has a coefficient of about 12 x 10⁻⁶ /°C), and the thermal expansion coefficient of the static support structure is larger than the thermal expansion coefficient of the separate bearing seat element by a factor of at least 1.4.
Re clm 16, Iizuka further discloses the separate bearing seat element is defined by a steel sleeve ([0027]).
Re clm 17, Iizuka in view of Oshikiri further discloses the steel sleeve has a radial outside surface which has an axial end section, and the adhesive bond is provided circumferentially at the axial end section of the radial outside surface of the steel sleeve (as shown in Fig. 3-8 of Oshikiri).
Re clm 18, the improvement of Oshikiri further discloses the static support structure comprises a circumferential adhesive ring groove (at 45) which is filled with an adhesive bond substance (43; epoxy adhesive; [0055]), and the adhesive bond substance defines the adhesive bond.
Re clm 19, the improvement of Oshikiri further discloses the steel sleeve has an axial end surface, and the adhesive bond substance is arranged so as to additionally provide a form fit at the axial end surface of the steel sleeve (for example, Fig. 3).
Re clm 20, the improvement of Oshikiri further discloses the circumferential adhesive ring groove is arranged substantially at a transversal plane which is defined by the axial end surface of the steel sleeve (Fig. 2-5).
Re clm 21, Iizuka further discloses the separate bearing seat element is configured to seat a roller bearing ring (Fig. 1).
Re clm 22, the improvement of Oshikiri further discloses the adhesive bond is provided over an axial length which is less than 20 % of an axial length of the separate bearing seat element (shown in Fig. 2).
Re clm 23, Iizuka further discloses the automotive auxiliary device is a pump or an electric motor (“motor housing”; [0019]).
Re clm 24, Iizuka further discloses the press-fitted connection between the separate bearing seat element and the static support structure is provided by an interference fit (‘shrink fitting’ is an interference fit; [0031]; press-fitting itself is an interference type fit).
Re clm 25, Iizuka in view of Oshikiri further discloses the adhesive bond is further configured to radially fix the separate bearing seat element (since epoxy fills wedge shaped cavity, it must also radially fix the bearing seat element; Oshikiri).
Re clm 26, Iizuka in view of Oshikiri further discloses the separate bearing seat element is defined by a steel sleeve ([0027]; Iizuka), the steel sleeve comprises an axial end surface (see annotated Fig. 6 below; Oshikiri) and a radial outside surface (annotated Fig. 6) which comprises an axial end section (annotated Fig. 6), the adhesive bond contacts the radial outside surface of the steel sleeve along a complete circumference at the axial end section, and the adhesive bond extends radially inwards (step down of sleeve to left of axial end surface; Oshikiri) the with respect to the radial outside surface to additionally contact the axial end surface of the steel sleeve.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
According to another interpretation of the art in which Oshikiri does not disclose all the features of claim 26:
Re clm 26, Iizuka in view of Oshikiri further discloses the separate bearing seat element is defined by a steel sleeve ([0027]; Iizuka), the steel sleeve comprises an axial end surface (left most axial facing surface, Fig. 3-8; Oshikiri) and a radial outside surface (radially outermost surface of seat/sleeve, Fig. 3-8; Oshikiri) which comprises an axial end section (annotated Fig. 6), the adhesive bond contacts the radial outside surface of the steel sleeve along a complete circumference at the axial end section.
Although Iizuka in view of Oshikiri discloses several different shapes for the adhesive bond, Iizuka in view of Oshikiri does not disclose the adhesive bond extends radially inwards the with respect to the radial outside surface to additionally contact the axial end surface of the steel sleeve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Iizuka in view of Oshikiri and provide any known anchoring shape for epoxy such as the adhesive bond extends radially inwards the with respect to the radial outside surface to additionally contact the axial end surface of the steel sleeve, since it has been held that shape of a device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed device was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka U.S. 2018/0156280 in view of Oshikiri U.S. 2017/0234318 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Young U.S. 2007/0116396.
Iizuka in view of Oshikiri discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 15, although Iizuka discloses the static support structure is made of aluminum ([0027]), Iizuka does not disclose the an aluminum alloy.
Young teaches a bearing housing made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the aluminum of Iizuka with that of an aluminum alloy, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues none of Iizuka and Oshikiri teach or suggest at least the feature of “an adhesive bond which is configured to axially fix the separate bearing seat element”, however, this is incorrect. Firstly, adhesive by itself in contact with the sleeve and the support structure would “axially fix the separate bearing seat element”. Still further, the shape of the cavity further provides the limitation, see at least Fig. 4-5 and 8. Furthermore, Applicant makes the arguments in reference to Fig. 2. The examiner has not used Figure 2 of Iizuka. The examiner clearly stated in the rejection of claim 13 that the Figure being referenced is “at left 20/21, Fig. 1”. See the annotated Figure 1 below which shows the left 20/21 outlined by the dashed rectangle.
PNG
media_image2.png
564
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments regarding Fig. 2 are not germane to the rejection since the rejection relied upon Fig. 1. Any analysis regarding Figure 2 is not persuasive since Figure 2 has a different structure from that the left side bearing seat arrangement of Fig. 1.
Applicant further argues that “Oshikiri clearly shows that stopper 43 is not configured to axially fix the separate bearing seta element”. This is factually incorrect. Oshikiri explicitly states that “the stopper is, for example, an epoxy adhesive filled into the cavity” and “the hardened stopper is integrated strongly with the diffuser…to function as an anchor and prevent the sleeve from being detached from the through hole” in paragraph [0055]. It is clear that Oshikiri teaches the claimed limitation. Even if Applicant could reasonably argue that the adhesive property of the epoxy cannot axially fix the seat element, at least Fig. 5 and 8 show protrusions which would axially lock the sleeve in both axial directions.
Applicant further asserts that “both ends of the sleeve must be supported to avoid axial movement”. The examiner notes that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See MPEP §2145. Not only is this Applicant’s opinion, but it is contradictory to what is stated in the reference as well as to common sense. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the protrusions shown in Fig. 5 and 8 at a minimum would anchor the seat/sleeve in both axial directions.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant produces no novel arguments, but rather suggests that the prior art does not suggest the features of claim 15 based on the rationale that the prior art does not suggest the feature of claim 13. The examiner further notes that Young is only used to teach an aluminum alloy as the material. Applicant has not argued against the improvement of Young.
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 ALAN B WAITS whose telephone number is (571)270-3664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6-4 EST.
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 R 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.
/ALAN B WAITS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617