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, an additional adjustment device that causes radial deformation of the first bearing inner ring (clm 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Paragraph 0074 defines this as an optional element and references the prior art figure 2 to specifically point to a pretension ring 136, this is an axial adjustment ring, a configuration that would specifically cause radial deformation different for an axial adjustment is not shown, nor is a device that performs both functions (covered by and/or) shown.
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 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16, 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 13 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.
Regarding claim 13, while enabling for a radial deformation of the first bearing inner ring by an additional adjustment device such a configuration has not been disclosed in such a manner that would allow one having ordinary skill in the art to know what Applicant was actually in possession of at the time of filing. What types of devices are used to cause the radial deformation and how are they incorporated into the larger overall device? What configurations do both the axial movement adjustment and the radial deformation (covered by “and/or” in the claim)? The specification references prior art figure 2 which includes a pretension nut on the shaft, however the nut only provides an axial adjustment. There is no illustration or significant detail in the specification relative to a configuration that would radially deform the inner ring provided and thus what is actually invented by Applicant relative to this feature is unknown.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Regarding claim 16, 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, 10, 16, 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) 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 so arranged that at least one of the following is applicable: i) said first outer ring being axially moveable along said rotational axis with respect to said bearing housing (see paragraph 0028); and, ii) said first bearing outer ring being radially deformable with respect to said rotational axis (see paragraph 0028, pretension and preload are one in the same in this case); said bearing housing having an opening formed therein (hole for 265); an adjustment device (265) extending through said opening and being accessible from outside said bearing housing (the head of the bolt/screw is exposed outside the housing and is thus accessible); and, upon actuation, said actuation device being configured so as to cause at least one of the following: i) an axially movement of said first bearing outer ring to adjust said position of said bearing arrangement; and, ii) a radial deformation of said first bearing outer ring to adjust a pretension of said bearing arrangement (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).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Marunaka discloses that said actuation device (265) includes an actuation element (head of the bolt) and a connecting element (threaded portion of the bolt) [clms 10 and 18]; and, said connecting element extends through said opening of the bearing housing (the thread potion of the bolt or the shank extends through the opening) [clm 10].
Regarding claim 16, Marunaka discloses that a plurality of actuation 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 17, Marunaka discloses that said bearing arrangement is a rotor bearing arrangement (the bearing supports the main shaft rotor 25).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 9, 11 and 12, and claims depending therefrom, 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 disclose the claimed combination of claim 1 and further comprising the adjustment device located between said first roller bearing and said second roller bearing. The closest prior art of record, applied above, shows the adjustment device at an axial end of the assembly and modifying the device to have a centrally located adjustment device is not disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record does not disclose the use of a threaded pretension ring that engages with the housing and is acted upon by the actuation device as defined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record does not disclose that the actuation device extends in a radial direction with respect to the rotational axis, this in turn would require the hole that the actuation device passes through to also be radial, the closest prior art of record, applied above, shows an axially extending device and thus the hole is also axial.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the prior art of record does not disclose that the actuation devices moves circumferentially around the rotational axis (clm 11) which in turn would require the opening that the device extends through to also extend circumferentially around the assembly (clm 12).
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, 9, 16 and 17 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 2, 3, 17 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/732228 (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 opening, however the reference application states the bearing housing has “a through-hole”, however the opening/hole must have “an actuation device” extending through it in both claims and being accessible from outside the housing, this requires the opening and hole to ultimately be through holes with “adjustment/actuation 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.
Claim 2 between the two applications are identical, claim 9 of the instant application and claim 3, despite a different of word cover the adjustment/actuation device extending radially or at 90 degrees relative to the rotational axis. Claim 16 of the instant application and claim 17 of the reference application define the same subject matter. Claim 17 of the instant application and claim 18 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