DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 7/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 3 and 6 were cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/07/2026 was filed after the filing date of the application on 8/16/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-2, 9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andress (US 5839961) in view of Shaulis (US 5364307).
Regarding claim 1, Andress teaches a bearing (10) for mounting a drive shaft of a work apparatus in a guide tube, the bearing defining a central axis (see Figure 4) and comprising:
a bearing tube (7) having a continuous bearing opening for receiving the drive shaft of the work apparatus (for receiving 3, see Figure 4);
said continuous bearing opening defining an incircle and an inner wall and having at least one cross section whereat said bearing opening has a non-circular cross section (inner wall of 7, see at least three recess is considered to make the cross section shape non-circular shape, in the same standard as applicant’s tube shape in Figure 4 of the application);
in said non-circular cross section, said continuous bearing opening having first sections lying against said incircle of said bearing opening (sections divided by the recess in 7) and having second sections lying in a circumferential direction between said first sections (the three recess section in 7);
said second sections lying at a distance (a) from said incircle (distance between 3 and the bottom of the recess); and,
said first sections of said continuous bearing opening being in a form of respective elevations whereat said inner wall of said continuous bearing opening projects in a direction of said central axis (see Figure 4),
said first sections comprise all of the regions of said bearing opening that are at a distance (b) of a value from the incircle (see Figure 4),
the first sections each extend over an angle of extent (α) (see Figure 4),
wherein, with respect to a same cross section, the drive shaft is supported at a greater number of points in said bearing tube than said bearing tube is supported in the guide tube (as the support on the shaft is with arc area including infinite number of points vs three support points on each leg 20/30, therefor it is consider to be great then the outer support, see Figure 4).
Andress fails to teach a distance (b) of less than 0.1 mm from the incircle, the first sections each extend over an angle of extent (α); and, the sum of the angles of extent (α) of all of said first sections is less than 160°.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific size of the distance (b) of less than 0.1 mm from the incircle, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Andress’ bearing to have the specific size set forth in the claim. In order to create the desired size bearing wanted by the end user.
Examiner notes as there is no limitation requiring what can be considered as the first section, each of the first section can be any size, with respect to the specific size of the sum of the angles of extent (α) of all of said first sections is less than 160°, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Andress’ bearing to have the specific size set forth in the claim. In order to create the desired size bearing wanted by the end user.
Shaulis teaches a bearing including the number of fins (34, five, six or any number, see Figures 2 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device to change the number of fins (form three of Andress to any number, since the number of fins divides the number of first section in Andress), as taught by Shaulis, In order to better support the bearing (col. 3 lines 30-49 of Shaulis). The resulting device of modified Andress teaches the first sections each extend over an angle of extent (α); and, the sum of the angles of extent (α) of all of said first sections is less than 160° (as modified, as the number of fin is increased, the size of the first section would decrease as the recess is base on the number of fins, thus at a desired number of fins the angle of the first section and the sum of the first sections would meet the limitation).
Regarding claim 2, modified Andress further teaches said first sections of said bearing opening are at least partially convex (at least the corner of the first section is convex from the inner thickness of the recess in 7, see Figure 4 of Andress).
Regarding claim 9, modified Andress further teaches said second sections of said bearing opening are at a distance (a) from said incircle of less than a value at each position.
Andress fails to teach a distance (a) from said incircle of less than 2.0 mm at each position.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific size of the distance (a) from said incircle of less than 2.0 mm at each position., the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Andress’ bearing to have the specific size set forth in the claim. In order to create the desired size bearing wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 12, modified Andress further teaches said bearing has at least one support element (top 20) extending outwardly from said bearing tube relative to said central axis (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 13, modified Andress further teaches said bearing has at least two of said support elements (top and right 20) which are adjacent and wherein at least two of said first sections are arranged in a circumferential section between said two adjacent support elements axis (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, modified Andress further teaches said bearing has at least one stiffening element axis (bottom 20, see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 15, modified Andress further teaches said bearing has two support elements (top and right 20) extending outwardly from said bearing tube relative to said central axis (see Figure 4); and, said stiffening element (bottom 20) is arranged in the circumferential direction about said central axis between said two support elements (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 16, modified Andress further teaches said stiffening element extends outward radially starting from said bearing tube (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 17, modified Andress further teaches said bearing has two adjacent support elements (top and right 20, see Figure 4) extending outwardly from said bearing tube relative to said central axis; and, said stiffening element connects said adjacent support elements in the circumferential direction about said central axis (bottom 20 in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 18, modified Andress further teaches at least one stiffening element is at a lesser maximum radial distance (s) from said central axis than the at least one support element (for this claim the stiffening element is considered just 20, while the at least one support element is considered the assembly of 20 and 30, therefore the one stiffening element is at a lesser maximum radial distance, see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 19, Andress teaches a work apparatus comprising:
a housing (6);
a drive motor (motor in 6) having an output shaft and being arranged in said housing;
a tool head (4) having a tool (2);
a guide tube (1) extending between said housing and said tool head;
a bearing (10) arranged in said guide tube;
a drive shaft (3) extending through said bearing and being configured to provide an operative connection between said output shaft of said drive motor and said tool of said tool head (see Figure 4);
a bearing mounting said drive shaft in said guide tube (see Figure 4);
said bearing defining a central axis and including:
a bearing tube (7) having a continuous bearing opening for receiving said drive shaft of the work apparatus (see Figure 4);
said bearing opening defining an incircle and an inner wall and having at least one cross section whereat said bearing opening has a non-circular cross section (inner wall of 7, see at least three recess is considered to make the cross section shape non-circular shape, in the same standard as applicant’s tube shape in Figure 4 of the application);
in said non-circular cross section, said bearing opening having first sections lying against said incircle of said bearing opening (sections divided by the recess in 7) and having second sections lying in a circumferential direction between said first sections (the three recess section in 7);
said second sections lying at a distance (a) from said incircle (distance between 3 and the bottom of the recess); and,
said first sections of said bearing opening being in a form of respective elevations whereat said inner wall of said bearing opening projects in a direction of said central axis (see Figure 4), said first sections comprise all of the regions of said bearing opening that are at a distance (b) of a value from the incircle (see Figure 4),
the first sections each extend over an angle of extent (α) (see Figure 4),
wherein, with respect to a same cross section, the drive shaft is supported at a greater number of points in said bearing tube than said bearing tube is supported in the guide tube (as the support on the shaft is with arc area including infinite number of points vs three support points on each leg 20/30, therefor it is consider to be great then the outer support, see Figure 4).
Andress fails to teach a distance (b) of less than 0.1 mm from the incircle, the first sections each extend over an angle of extent (α); and, the sum of the angles of extent (α) of all of said first sections is less than 160°.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific size of the distance (b) of less than 0.1 mm from the incircle, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Andress’ bearing to have the specific size set forth in the claim. In order to create the desired size bearing wanted by the end user.
Examiner notes as there is no limitation requiring what can be considered as the first section, each of the first section can be any size, with respect to the specific size of the sum of the angles of extent (α) of all of said first sections is less than 160°, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Andress’ bearing to have the specific size set forth in the claim. In order to create the desired size bearing wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 20, Andress teaches a work apparatus comprising:
a housing (6);
a drive motor (motor in 6) having an output shaft and being arranged in said housing;
a tool head (4) having a tool (2);
a guide tube (1) extending between said housing and said tool head;
a bearing (10) arranged in said guide tube;
a drive shaft (3) extending through said bearing and being configured to provide an operative connection between said output shaft of said drive motor and said tool of said tool head (see Figure 4);
a bearing mounting said drive shaft in said guide tube (see Figure 4);
said bearing defining a central axis and including:
a bearing tube (7) having a continuous bearing opening for receiving said drive shaft of the work apparatus (see Figure 4);
said bearing opening defining an incircle and an inner wall and having at least one cross section whereat said bearing opening has a non-circular cross section (inner wall of 7, see at least three recess is considered to make the cross section shape non-circular shape, in the same standard as applicant’s tube shape in Figure 4 of the application);
in said non-circular cross section, said bearing opening having first sections lying against said incircle of said bearing opening (sections divided by the recess in 7) and having second sections lying in a circumferential direction between said first sections (the three recess section in 7);
said second sections lying at a distance (a) from said incircle (distance between 3 and the bottom of the recess); and,
said first sections of said bearing opening being in a form of respective elevations whereat said inner wall of said bearing opening projects in a direction of said central axis (see Figure 4), said first sections comprise all of the regions of said bearing opening that are at a distance (b) of a value from the incircle (see Figure 4),
wherein the bearing has at least three and at most four support elements extending outwardly from said bearing tube relative to said central axis (three element, see Figure 4).
Andress fails to teach a distance (b) of less than 0.1 mm from the incircle, the first sections each extend over an angle of extent (α); and, the sum of the angles of extent (α) of all of said first sections is less than 160°.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific size of the distance (b) of less than 0.1 mm from the incircle, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Andress’ bearing to have the specific size set forth in the claim. In order to create the desired size bearing wanted by the end user.
Examiner notes as there is no limitation requiring what can be considered as the first section, each of the first section can be any size, with respect to the specific size of the sum of the angles of extent (α) of all of said first sections is less than 160°, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Andress’ bearing to have the specific size set forth in the claim. In order to create the desired size bearing wanted by the end user.
Claims 4-5, 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andress (US 5839961) in view of Shaulis (US 5364307).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 7-8, modified Andress further teaches said first sections each extend over an angle of extent (α) of a value about said central axis, the sum of the angles of extent (α) of all of the first sections is not more than 360° about said central axis (see Figure 4)
Andress fails to teach said first sections each extend over an angle of extent (α) of 1° to 20° about said central axis (as required by claim 4), said first sections each extend over an angle of extent (α) of 5° to 15° about said central axis (as required by claim 5), the first sections each extend over an angle of extent (α); and, the sum of the angles of extent (α) of all of the first sections is less than 120° about said central axis (as required by claim 7), or the first sections each extend over an angle of extent (α); and, the sum of the angles of extent (α) of all of the first sections is not more than 90° about said central axis (as required by claim 8).
Shaulis teaches a bearing including the number of fins (34, five, six or any number, see Figures 2 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device to change the number of fins (form three of Andress to any number, since the number of fins divides the number of first section in Andress), as taught by Shaulis, In order to better support the bearing (col. 3 lines 30-49 of Shaulis). The resulting device of modified Andress teaches said first sections each extend over an angle of extent (α) of 1° to 20° about said central axis (as modified, as the number of fin is increased, the size of the first section would decrease as the recess is base on the number of fins, thus at a desired number of fins the angle of the first section would meet the limitation), said first sections each extend over an angle of extent (α) of 5° to 15° about said central axis (as modified, as the number of fin is increased, the size of the first section would decrease as the recess is base on the number of fins, thus at a desired number of fins the angle of the first section would meet the limitation), the first sections each extend over an angle of extent (α); and, the sum of the angles of extent (α) of all of the first sections is less than 120° about said central axis (as required by claim 7) (as modified, as the number of fin is increased, the size of the first section would decrease as the recess is base on the number of fins, thus at a desired number of fins the angle of the first section and the sum of the first sections would meet the limitation), and the first sections each extend over an angle of extent (α); and, the sum of the angles of extent (α) of all of the first sections is not more than 90° about said central axis (as modified, as the number of fin is increased, the size of the first section would decrease as the recess is base on the number of fins, thus at a desired number of fins the angle of the first section and the sum of the first sections would meet the limitation).
Regarding claim 10-11, modified Andress further teaches said bearing opening has more than two first sections (see Figure 1).
Andress fails to teach said bearing opening has more than three first sections (as required by claim 10), said bearing opening has more than five first sections (as required by claim 11).
Shaulis teaches a bearing including the number of fins (34, five, six or any number, see Figures 2 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device to change the number of fins (form three of Andress to any number, including six, since the number of fins divides the number of first section in Andress), as taught by Shaulis, In order to better support the bearing (col. 3 lines 30-49 of Shaulis).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Andress fails to teach “with respect to a same cross section, the drive shaft is supported at a greater number of points in said bearing tube than said bearing tube is supported in the guide tube”. Examiner disagrees and notes that Andress teaches as the support on the shaft is with arc area including infinite number of points vs three support points on each leg 20/30, therefor it is consider to be greater then the outer support, see Figure 4.
In response to applicant's argument that Andress fails to teach “the sum of the angles of extent (α) of all of said first sections is less than 160°”. Examiner disagree and notes as there is no limitation requiring what can be considered as the first section, each of the first section can be any size, with respect to the specific size of the sum of the angles of extent (α) of all of said first sections is less than 160°, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Andress’ bearing to have the specific size set forth in the claim. In order to create the desired size bearing wanted by the end user.
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 LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 PM.
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, Ashley Boyer can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 9/04/2026
Prosecution Insights