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 .
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 1 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 1 recites “being configured to regulate the sealing contact with the second bearing ring by its own deformation under the effect of the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the bearing” is considered unlimited functional language. The limitations extends to all means of resolving a problem and thus is not supported by the written description. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
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 2-14 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 2 recites “relatively rigid” and “relatively flexible”. It is unclear what these elements are rigid or flexible relative to. For example, are they rigid or flexible relative to each other or to some other element or standard?
Claim 2 recites “the contact elevation angle”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “preferably” twice. It is unclear if the limitations following the term “preferably” are required or optional rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claims 7 and 10 recite “the sealing section further comprises at least one static sealing lip”. Claim 1 previously recited the seal having “an anchoring portion configured to be fastened to a first bearing ring” and “a sealing section configured to form a sealing fit with a second bearing ring, the sealing portion including at least one dynamic sealing lip configured to form a contact seal with the second bearing ring”. It is unclear of the seal portion can both have a static and dynamic seal with the second bearing ring.
Claims 13 and 14 recite “a first bearing ring” and “a second bearing ring” as well as “a seal according to claim 1”. Claim 1 previously recited a first bearing ring and a second bearing ring. It is unclear if these are the same limitations or if there are multiple instances of first and second bearing rings.
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 –
Claims 1-2, 7-8 and 13 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 configured to regulate the sealing contact with the second bearing ring by its own deformation 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).
Re clm 2, 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 end thereof, under the action of said internal and external pressure difference, said dynamic sealing lip being set up so as to be able, by its own deformation, to make the 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, as best understood, Tsuchida further discloses the sealing section further comprises at least one static sealing lip (19) located axially outwardly of the dynamic sealing lip.
Re clm 8, as best understood, Tsuchida further discloses a non-contact seal is formed between the static sealing lip and the second bearing ring (labyrinth seal formed between 19 and 15).
Re clm 13, Tsuchida further discloses a rolling bearing (Fig. 1) comprising: a first bearing ring (5); a second bearing ring (3); at least one row of rolling elements (6) provided between the first and second bearing rings; and a bearing seal (10a) according to claim 1.
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.
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 a contact seal is formed between the static sealing lip and 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 1-12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE 102020127780 discloses a similarly shaped bearing seal in Fig. 2.
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