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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the at least one dynamic sealing lip extending axially inward and radially outward or inward as said at least one dynamic sealing lip extends from the root to the tip” of claim 1 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7-12 recite the term “static sealing lip”. The use of this term is inconsistent with the recognized meaning of “static sealing lip” in the art. Static seals in the art are considered to be seals between non-moving parts. In the instant case, the “static sealing lip” is a seal between moving parts since the inner ring 2 rotates/moves relative to the seal. See MPEP § 2173.05(a)(III).
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1 recites “the at least one dynamic sealing lip extending axially inward and radially outward or inward as said at least one dynamic sealing lip extends from the root to the tip”. Neither the specification nor the drawings as originally filed disclose the dynamic sealing lip extending axially inward and radially outward. As such, the limitation is new matter. Claims 7, 10, 17 and 18 suffer from the same issue.
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 1-2, 7-8, 13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuchida U.S. 2002/0009246.
Re clm 1, Tsuchida discloses a bearing seal (10a, Fig. 1) comprising: an anchoring portion (at 18) configured to be fastened to a first bearing ring (5); and a sealing portion (for example, 20) configured to form a sealing fit with a second bearing ring (3), the sealing portion including at least one dynamic sealing lip (20 and 33) configured to form a contact seal with the second bearing ring during operation, the at least one dynamic sealing lip being deformable to deform under the effect of the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the bearing (arrangement of Fig. 1 is at least capable of performing the function; as pressure inside bearing increases, 20 is pressed with more force against 21), the at least one dynamic sealing lip having a root and a tip, the at least one dynamic sealing lip extending axially inward and radially inward as said at least one dynamic sealing lip extends from the root to the tip (root portion of lip extends radially inward and tip end portion of lip extends radially inward, see Fig. 1).
Re clm 2 and 16, Tsuchida further discloses the dynamic sealing lip comprises a relatively rigid zone (funnel shaped portion of 20 that connects to 10a) starting at the root thereof and a relatively flexible zone (narrowest section of 20 in the middle thereof) ending at the tip, the relatively rigid zone being rigid relative to the relatively flexible zone and the relatively flexible zone being flexible relative to the relatively rigid zone, wherein under the action of said internal and external pressure difference, said dynamic sealing lip is configured to deform to make an angle between the relatively rigid zone and the radial direction of the bearing become smaller (as 20 is flexed down due to increased pressure inside of bearing, funnel portion deflects to be more parallel to radial direction compared to lower pressure), and to make the contact elevation angle between the relatively flexible zone and the second bearing ring become larger (increased pressure inside of bearing would cause the midsection of 20 to flex downward radially, this would in turn cause 33 to tilt away from ball 6 and therefore increase obtuse angle between the distal end of 20 and surface 21).
Re clm 7, Tsuchida further discloses the sealing portion further includes at least one static sealing lip (19) located axially outwardly of the dynamic sealing lip.
Re clm 8, Tsuchida further discloses the at least one the static sealing lip is configured to form a non-contact seal with the second bearing ring (labyrinth seal formed between 19 and 15).
Re clm 13, Tsuchida further discloses a rolling bearing (Fig. 1) comprising: the bearing seal (10a) according to claim 1; the first bearing ring (5); the second bearing ring (3); and at least one row of rolling elements (6) provided between the first and second bearing rings.
Re clm 17, Tsuchida further discloses the relatively rigid zone extends axially inward and radially inward from the root (as shown in Fig. 1).
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by An CN 106838017.
Re clm 1, An discloses a bearing seal (Fig. 1) comprising: an anchoring portion (at 16) configured to be fastened to a first bearing ring (2); and a sealing portion (lower portion of seal) configured to form a sealing fit with a second bearing ring (1), the sealing portion including at least one dynamic sealing lip (10) configured to form a contact seal (claim 6) with the second bearing ring during operation, the at least one dynamic sealing lip being deformable to deform under the effect of the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the bearing (arrangement of Fig. 1 is at least capable of performing the function; as pressure inside bearing increases, 10 is pressed with more force against inner ring 1), the at least one dynamic sealing lip having a root (in vicinity of 15) and a tip (close to numeral 10), the at least one dynamic sealing lip extending axially inward and radially inward as said at least one dynamic sealing lip extends from the root to the tip (as shown in Fig. 1).
Re clm 2 and 16, An further discloses the dynamic sealing lip comprises a relatively rigid zone (portion of lip just above and to left of numeral 15) starting at the root thereof and a relatively flexible zone (narrower sections of lip starting roughly in middle and extending to the end of the lip) ending at the tip, the relatively rigid zone being rigid relative to the relatively flexible zone and the relatively flexible zone being flexible relative to the relatively rigid zone, wherein under the action of said internal and external pressure difference, said dynamic sealing lip is configured to deform to make an angle between the relatively rigid zone and the radial direction of the bearing become smaller (as lip 10 is flexed down due to increased pressure inside of bearing, root portion deflects to be more parallel to radial direction compared to lower pressure), and to make the contact elevation angle between the relatively flexible zone and the second bearing ring become larger (increased pressure inside of bearing would cause the midsection of lip 10 to flex downward radially, this would in turn cause tip end of 10 to tilt away from inner ring and therefore increase angle between the distal end of 10 and surface of 1).
Re clm 7, An further discloses the sealing portion further includes at least one static sealing lip (11) located axially outwardly of the dynamic sealing lip.
Re clm 8, An further discloses the at least one the static sealing lip is configured to form a non-contact seal with the second bearing ring (gap formed between 11 and 8).
Re clm 13, An further discloses a rolling bearing (Fig. 1) comprising: the bearing seal according to claim 1; the first bearing ring (2); the second bearing ring (1); and at least one row of rolling elements (3) provided between the first and second bearing rings.
Re clm 17, An further discloses the relatively rigid zone extends axially inward and radially inward from the root (as shown in Fig. 1).
Re clm 18, An further discloses the relatively flexible zone extends axially inward and radially inward from the relatively rigid zone.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida U.S. 2002/0009246 as applied to claim 2 above.
Tsuchida discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 3, Tsuchida is silent as to the specific dimensions of the sealing portion and does not disclose the ratio t/L between the thickness of said relatively rigid zone and the overall length of the dynamic sealing lip is between 8% to 16%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsuchida and provide the ratio t/L between the thickness of said relatively rigid zone and the overall length of the dynamic sealing lip is between 8% to 16%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). The ratio of the thickness to the length is a well-known result effective variable in sealing lips. This corresponds to basic beam theory which posits that longer beams flex more than shorter beams and thinner beams flex more than thicker beams. The flexibility of the seal is directly related the force between the seal lip and the opposing contact surface. Increased force provides better sealing at the cost of wear and friction.
Re clm 4, Tsuchida further discloses the dynamic sealing lip is provided with a folding zone (transition between funnel shaped portion of 20 and thin portion of 20) between the relatively rigid zone and the relatively flexible zone.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An CN 106838017 as applied to claim 2 above.
An discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 3, An is silent as to the specific dimensions of the sealing portion and does not disclose the ratio t/L between the thickness of said relatively rigid zone and the overall length of the dynamic sealing lip is between 8% to 16%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify An and provide the ratio t/L between the thickness of said relatively rigid zone and the overall length of the dynamic sealing lip is between 8% to 16%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). The ratio of the thickness to the length is a well-known result effective variable in sealing lips. This corresponds to basic beam theory which posits that longer beams flex more than shorter beams and thinner beams flex more than thicker beams. The flexibility of the seal is directly related the force between the seal lip and the opposing contact surface. Increased force provides better sealing at the cost of wear and friction.
Re clm 4, An further discloses the dynamic sealing lip is provided with a folding zone (thinnest portion of seal lip 10) between the relatively rigid zone and the relatively flexible zone.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida U.S. 2002/0009246 as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Mizutani JP 2005-315313.
Tsuchida discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 9, Tsuchida does not disclose the at least one static sealing lip is a contact seal with the second bearing ring.
Mizutani teaches contact seals and labyrinth seals as equivalents ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the non-contact labyrinth style seal of Tsuchida with a contact style seal to achieve the predictable result of preventing foreign matter from entering the bearing. It is well known that contact seals offer better sealing ability at the cost of friction while non-contact labyrinth type seals offer reduced friction at the cost of sealing ability.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An CN 106838017 as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Mizutani JP 2005-315313.
An discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 9, An does not disclose the at least one static sealing lip is a contact seal with the second bearing ring.
Mizutani teaches contact seals and labyrinth seals as equivalents ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the non-contact labyrinth style seal of An with a contact style seal to achieve the predictable result of preventing foreign matter from entering the bearing. It is well known that contact seals offer better sealing ability at the cost of friction while non-contact labyrinth type seals offer reduced friction at the cost of sealing ability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 10-12 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
102 Rejection: Tsuchida
Applicant argues that Tsuchida fails to disclose a dynamic sealing lip that extends axially inward and radially outward or inward as the sealing lip extends from its root to its tip. This is incorrect since the root portion is shown to extend both in the radial inward and axial inward directions. The central portion of the lip extends axially inward. The distal portion of the tip extends radially inward and axially inward. Applicant seems to be arguing that every portion of the lip must each extend both radially inward and axially inward. The examiner notes that this limitation is not claimed. If any portion or combination of portions of the lip extend in the axially inward and radially inward directions, then the limitation is met. This even includes a situation in which one portion of the lip extends only axially and another portion extends only radially; the lip as a whole can be considered to extend axially inward and radially inward.
Further purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner has provided another rejection based on An with the assumption that the entirety of the lip, including any subsection thereof, must extend in both the radial and axial directions even though such a limitation is not present.
The examiner further notes Terasawa U.S. 2011-0089642 discloses a lip (10a) with a similar shape to the invention. Neal U.S. 4,557,612 discloses a seal with a similar shape in Fig. 6 and 8-9. DE 102020127780 discloses a similarly shaped lip to the invention in Fig. 2. Tamura DE 102018114677 also discloses a similar shape seal (Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
Prosecution Insights