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
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. Figure 2 is explicitly stated as prior art in the specification, however Figure 1 also appears to be prior art as no improvement to the overall device is disclosed, the improvement is in the standalone bearing assembly. If the intent is for Figure 1 to also be prior art then the figure should also include the proper label. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to because there are two reference characters 120 in figure 2, each on a different “side” of the device, 120 is said to be the rear side and there should only be one rear in the drawing. It is believed that the character 120 at the top of the figure should be removed, this would be consistent with Figure 3.
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, a configuration with radial deformation of the outer ring (item ii in clm 1 and also in clm 10) and a configuration two different adjustment devices (clm 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. With regards to the radial deformation, while enabling for radial deformation of said first bearing outer ring (item ii in claim 1) the drawings does not appear to show such and embodiment and the description of figure 8 does not appear to match what is actually illustrated. The specification links the radial deformation to figure 8, however in the figure 156 and 170 are one element as illustrated, the specification appears to be stating that these are two elements that work together to perform the radial deformation but a solid block as illustrated would not perform such a function. 168 is said to be and inclined surface however no distinct surface is illustrated and the hatching is consistent and shared through the element which is indicative of a one piece construction. It appears that figure 8 as illustrated does not correlate with the detailed description.
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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17, line 1, “is” should be - -are- -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 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.
Claim 10 is setting forth a combination with two distinct adjustment devices, within the context of the invention such a combination/species has not been discussed in any detail or illustrated and thus it is unclear what arrangement(s) Applicant actually had possession of at the time of filing. The second adjustment device is referenced in paragraph 0086, however this is in reference to the prior art figure 2 which does not include an adjustment device as referenced relative to the actual practice of the invention. The feature is also only referenced as “optional” and no specific details of such an embodiment are disclosed. The adjustment device as defined relative to the actual invention is a bolt or a screw type element, there is no support relative to the specifics of the combination being set forth in claim 10 in the original filing that would allow one having ordinary skill in the prior art to make and/or use the invention as specified in the claim.
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 7-9 and 17 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 7 recites the limitation "said further force transfer element" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should claim 7 depend from claim 6 and not claim 4?
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear what the recitation of the claim is specifically defining. The claim sets forth a plurality of the adjustment devices and that they are “provided relative to a circumference…” and it is unclear what this actually means. The recitation reads as incomplete for not defining how the parts are arranged relative to each other. Are they spaced apart about the circumference? Or could this include some spacing away from the circumference?
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-12, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marunaka, WO2019156720.
Regarding claim 1, Marunaka discloses a bearing arrangement for a rotating component of a wind turbine (see at least figures 1 and 2 showing a wind turbine), the bearing arrangement comprising: a first roller bearing (at 155) and a second roller bearing (at 150); said rotating component (rotor shaft 25) defining a rotational axis and being supported by said first roller bearing and said second roller bearing; a bearing housing (110a/110b) defining a through-hole (hole for 265) and supporting said first roller bearing and said second roller bearing (the bearings are placed in the housing); said first roller bearing, said second roller bearing, said rotating component and said bearing housing being arranged to form a pretension circuit (the bearing is held under pretension via the screw 265, this forms a circuit, the claim does not structurally define the parts in a manner that would distinguish from any collection of elements defining a “circuit”); said first roller bearing including a first bearing inner ring (125), a first bearing outer ring (210) and rolling elements (155) arranged between said first bearing inner ring and said first bearing outer ring; said first bearing outer ring being axially moveable along said rotational axis with respect to said bearing housing and/or radially deformable with respect to said rotational axis (thru the pressure exerted at 268 the outer ring can translate axial to the left in figure 4 to form the pretension circuit, see paragraph 0028); an adjustment device (265) extending through said through-hole of said bearing housing; said adjustment device (265) being accessible from outside said bearing housing (the head of the bolt/screw is exposed outside the housing and is thus accessible); and, said adjustment device (265), upon actuation, being configured to cause at least one of the following: i) an axial movement of said first bearing outer ring (see paragraph 0028); and, ii) a radial deformation of said first bearing outer ring to adjust a pretension of said bearing arrangement (see paragraph 0028, pretension and preload are one in the same in this case).
Regarding claim 3, Marunaka discloses that said adjustment device is configured to move at an angle (a) in accordance with one of the following: i) from 0° to 135° with respect to said rotational axis; ii) from 0° to 90° with respect to said rotational axis; and,
iii) of 0° or 90° with respect to said rotational axis (265 runs parallel to the axis and thus at an angle of 0 degrees meeting all three options of the claim).
Regarding claim 4, Marunaka discloses a force transfer element (260, part with surface 268) between said adjustment device (265) and said first bearing outer ring (210) so as to cause a force generated by actuation of said adjustment device to be transferred to said first bearing outer ring.
Regarding claim 7, Marunaka discloses that said force transfer element and/or said further force transfer element is a ring-shaped element surrounding said rotational axis (260 in the final product is a ring shaped member).
Regarding claim 8, Marunaka discloses that said ring-shaped element is a pressure ring or washer (260 is a ring that exerts pressure thus making it a pressure ring).
Regarding claim 9, Marunaka discloses that said force transfer element and/or said further force transfer element is formed in segments (260 as shown in figure 3 includes a mating line between two ring halves and is thus a segment like all other parts in the split bearing assembly of Marunaka).
Regarding claim 11, Marunaka discloses that said adjustment device is a screw, a bolt or a hydraulic cylinder (265 is specifically disclosed as a bolt).
Regarding claim 12, Marunaka discloses that said bearing housing has an outer surface and has a recess formed in said outer surface (the hole that the head of the bolt 265 sits in is a recess in the outer surface of the housing, see left side of figure 4); and,
said adjustment device is at least partially arranged in said recess for mounting and/or actuating said adjustment device.
Regarding claim 17, Marunaka discloses that a plurality of adjustment devices is provided relative to a circumference of said first bearing outer ring (a plurality of the bolts 265 are arranged around the assembly).
Regarding claim 18, Marunaka discloses that said bearing arrangement is a rotor bearing arrangement (the bearing supports the main shaft rotor 25).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 6 and 13-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the claimed combination of claim 1 further including the adjustment device being located between said first roller bearing and said second roller bearing. In the case of the applied prior art the adjustment device is at an axial end of the assembly and moving the device to a location between the bearings would change the principle of operation.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the claimed combination of claim 4 further including the adjustment device being configured to move along a predefined moving direction, wherein said adjustment device and said force transfer element conjointly include a contact interface inclined with respect to said predefined moving direction. The applied prior art uses a screw as the adjustment device, however the screw in this case is actuated to move another object, the screw itself does not translate in a moving direction nor does this arrangement have an inclined contact interface that would be inclined with respect to the moving direction.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the claimed combination of claim 4 further including same features of claim 5 and an additional force transfer element provided between said force transfer element and said first bearing outer ring, said force transfer element and said further force transfer element conjointly form a contact interface inclined with respect to said predefined moving direction.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the claimed combination with said adjustment device being a screw and, said recess has a shape which is adapted to a contour of said adjustment screw so as to permit said adjustment screw to be embedded in said recess such that turning said adjustment screw is geometrically limited. The recess in the case of the instant application is the tool insertion hole, this recess interacts with the tool to limit movement of the adjustment screw, such a limiting device is not disclosed in the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 15, and dependent claim 16, the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the claimed combination of claim 1 and further including the adjustment device comprising a sensor for measuring a parameter representative for the pretensioning state of said bearing arrangement. The claim combination is requiring the adjustment device itself, in this case the screw/bolt, as having a sensor, the prior art of record does not disclose providing the screw/bolt itself with a sensor element.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 17 and 18 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/737792 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, while having a slight difference in wording the claims cover the same subject matter. The claims differ in reference to the through hole, however the reference application states the bearing housing has “an opening” and then that that opening has “an actuation device” extending through it and being accessible from outside the housing, this equates specifically to the “through-hole” and the “adjustment device” as recited in the instant application. As there are no other distinctions between the two claims the claims cover the identical subject matter necessitating this rejection. Applicant may intend for “actuation device” and “adjustment device” to have different meanings but in order to patentably distinguish the claims that mean must be explicitly stated, without a distinction in the claim the terms are synonyms within the context of both disclosures.
Claim 2 between the two applications are identical, claim 3 of the instant application and claim 9, despite a different of word cover the adjustment/actuation device extending radially or at 90 degrees relative to the rotational axis. Claim 17 of the instant application and claim 16 of the reference application define the same subject matter. Claim 18 of the instant application and claim 17 of the reference application define the same subject matter.
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