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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the character of the lines, numbers, and letters are not sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well-defined as required by MPEP §608.02(V)(l). The numerals are handwritten. They should be typewritten for clarity. The lead lines and the lines for element 12-1 to 12-4 are thicker and darker than the other lines of the drawings. The remainder of the lines are or poor quality.
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.
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.
Claims 1-25 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.
Claim 1: line 1 recites “large”. The term “large” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” 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 specification does not set forth a standard for the term large. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know which sizes of bearings would be classified as “large” and which would not.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the at least one displacement sensor module is pushable from outside the housing or the outer ring”. It is unclear what structure provides this feature. For example, an opening is incapable of pushing on a sensor module.
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.
Claims 11-12, 14-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rode U.S. 4,348,665.
Re clm 11, Rode discloses a large rolling bearing assembly (Fig. 2) comprising: a rolling bearing (40, 42, 44 and 46); and at least one displacement sensor module (70), wherein the rolling bearing includes an inner ring (40), an outer ring (42), and a plurality of rolling elements (44 and 46) between the inner ring and the outer ring, wherein the inner ring is supported on a shaft (28), wherein the outer ring is mounted in a housing (38), and wherein the at least one displacement sensor module is configured to measure a radial position of the shaft in order to detect wear of the rolling bearing (col. 5: lines 38-48).
Re clm 12, Rode further discloses the at least one displacement sensor module is integrated in the housing or is integrated in the outer ring (housing as shown in Fig. 2).
Re clm 13, Rode further discloses the at least one displacement sensor module is arranged on a radial surface of the housing (bore hole is a radially extending surface) or on a radial surface of the outer ring adjacent to an axial end of the rolling bearing.
Re clm 14, Rode further discloses the housing or the outer ring includes a radially extending opening (hole through which 70 extends in 38) through which the at least one displacement sensor module is pushable (via threads and nut on top of 38) from outside the housing or the outer ring.
Re clm 15, Rode further discloses the at least one displacement sensor module includes at least one sensor element (70, Fig. 5), and wherein the at least one displacement sensor module is mounted so that the at least one sensor element is arranged adjacent to the shaft (bottom tip of 70 is close to shaft 28).
Re clm 16¸ Rode further discloses the at least one displacement sensor module includes at least one sensor element (70), and wherein the at least one displacement sensor module is mounted so that the at least one sensor element is arranged adjacent to an intermediate element (50) mounted on the shaft at an axial end of the rolling bearing.
Re clm 18, Rode further discloses at least one sealing unit (at 54) arranged on at least one axial end of the rolling bearing, and wherein the at least one displacement sensor module is arranged radially outside of the sealing unit (at least a portion of sensor arrangement is radially outside of seal arrangement at 54) and configured to indirectly measure the radial position of the shaft.
Re clm 20, Rode further discloses the at least one displacement sensor module includes a tubular, radially extending receptacle (76, Fig. 5) extending toward the shaft for receiving at least one sensor element (70) and/or at least one cable (71).
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rode U.S. 4,348,665 as applied to claim 11 above.
Rode discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 19, although Rode discloses the at least one displacement sensor module is arranged at a first axial end of the rolling bearing (shown in Fig. 2), Rode does not disclose the at least one displacement sensor module comprises a first displacement sensor module and a second displacement sensor module, wherein the first displacement sensor module is arranged at a first axial end of the rolling bearing, and wherein the second displacement sensor module is arranged at a second axial end of the rolling bearing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rodes and provide a first displacement sensor module and a second displacement sensor module, wherein the first displacement sensor module is arranged at a first axial end of the rolling bearing, and wherein the second displacement sensor module is arranged at a second axial end of the rolling bearing, since it held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B). Furthermore, duplicating the sensors in each bearing would improve the redundancy of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 21-25 are 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights