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 .
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.
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 1, 4-7, 9, 12-14 and 16-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the metes and bounds of the last 4 lines of the claim collectively are unclear. The recitation first states that the inner surface is “continuous in form” but the claim does not state what is continuous, does Applicant mean continuous with the support member or is the surface itself continuous? (NOTE: this recitation is rolled up from previous claim 8, however that claim only referenced the inner surface thus what was continuous was clear) The claim then states that the surface is “smooth” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite but Applicant attempts to define the term by stating “such that the inner surface is substantially free of any recesses” however this recitation would include surfaces with some degree/number of recesses as “substantially free” does not mean none, because of this the context of smooth is unclear and how many recesses can actually be present and still be considered “smooth” is unknown. Then if the surface is meant to be “continuous” wouldn’t any recess disrupt this? By the use of “continuous” and “smooth” is Applicant attempting to exclude the embodiment of figure 4 or is the use of “substantially free” meant to include breaks or recesses in the surface such that figure 4 would still be covered by the claim? If the latter the prior rejection remains applicable, see below.
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, 4-7, 9, 12, 13 and 16, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ide, USP 5,489,155.
Regarding claim 1, Ide discloses an aerodynamic bearing (while called a hydrodynamic bearing Ide discloses that these types of bearing can use oil, air or water and thus the bearing would be aerodynamic when air is used, see column 1, lines 27-31) comprising an inner surface (see figure 8, inner surface of 40 or figure 2a, inner surface of 12) defining a channel (hole or bore) for receiving a shaft (labeled in figure 2a as 5), the inner surface deformable between a first position in which the inner surface is located at a first radial distance from a center point of the channel, and a second position in which the inner surface is located at a second radial distance from the center point of the channel, the second radial distance greater than the first radial distance (see column 20, lines 33-48 disclosing that the slits/cuts and corresponding beams 42 and 44 allow for flexibility of the pad element and that the beams act like springs, column 19, line 65-column 20, line 23 which discusses the six degrees of freedom that the assemblies illustrated provide, based on this disclosure the pads are capable of radially compressing from the relaxed position shown in figures 2a or 10 to a position where the pad is further from the shaft thus a second position or compressed state results in a greater distance between the pad surface and the shaft than in the first relaxed position), and a support member (42/46 and 44/48 form support members just like ribs 15 in the instant application, 14/16 are supports similar to the embodiment in figure 4 of the instant application) disposed radially outwardly of the inner surface, the support member formed of the at least one of a elastomeric material and a plastic material (the bearing element is one monolithic body and thus the support members are formed of the same material as the rest of the part just like in the instant application, see column 11, lines 10-16 disclosing that plastic is one of the materials that can be used, however the disclosure repeatedly addresses flexing and moving of the pad, this also makes the material used an elastomeric material), wherein the inner surface and the support member are integrally formed (see figure 8), wherein the inner surface is formed of at least one of the elastomeric material and the plastic material (one monolithic body thus all parts are formed of the same material) and is continuous in form (the whole unit is one continuous part, however the surface itself is continuous just like figure 4 of the instant application), and wherein the inner surface defines an annular wall of the channel and is “smooth” such that the inner surface is “substantially free” of any recesses (in this case the recitation of the claim is being treated as not excluding or including any particular number of recesses that could be in the surface and the surface still be considered smooth, see rejection under 35 USC 112 above, because of this the configuration shown by Ide can be considered “smooth” and “substantially free” of recesses just like figure 4 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 4, Ide discloses that the support member comprises a plurality of arcuate ribs defining apertures (42 and 44 are curved rib elements that follow the curvature of the general ring shape of the bearing and are thus arcuate ribs).
Regarding claim 5, Ide discloses that the aerodynamic bearing comprises an outer surface spaced from the inner surface, and the support member is disposed between the inner surface and the outer surface (the support members 42/46 and 44/48 are between the two surfaces, the radially inner and radial outer surfaces of the ring shaped bearing element).
Regarding claim 6, Ide discloses that the outer surface is formed of the at least one of the elastomeric material and the plastic material (the bearing is one monolithic body and all aspects thereof are formed of the same material).
Regarding claim 7, Ide discloses that the outer surface is integrally formed with the inner surface (the bearing is one monolithic body and thus all features thereof are integral).
Regarding claim 9, Ide discloses that the support member is annular in form and defines an outer surface of the aerodynamic bearing (the support can be considered as inclusive of everything other than the pad element, in figure 2a this would include 10 and in figure 8 this would include the annular outer element that connects 46 to 48).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is reciting how the part is made, via extrusion, this is a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2113, however Ide further discloses that extrusion can be one of the processes used to make the bearing elements disclosed therein, see at least column 11, lines 16-20.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is reciting how the part is made, via injection molding, this is a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2113, however Ide further discloses that injection molding can be one processes used to make the bearing elements disclosed therein, see at least column 11, lines 16-20.
Regarding claim 16, Ide discloses a rotor assembly for a brushless motor (intended use, all bearings support a shaft or rotor assembly regardless of what the actual device is, however it is noted that Ide discloses that the bearing can be in an electric motor, see column 6, lines 41-45), the rotor assembly comprising an aerodynamic bearing as claimed in claim 1, and a shaft located within the channel (a shaft is placed within the channel of the bearing in the assembled product so that the rotating element is supported by the bearing).
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide, USP 5,489,155, in view of Lembke, USP 6,469,411.
Regarding claim 14, Ide does not disclose that the inner surface comprises a low friction coating.
Lembke teaches that the inner surface of a plain or sliding bearing comprises a low friction coating (see column 4, lines 1-5) for the purpose of enhancing sliding properties and reduce frictional wear while the pressure builds to support the shaft on a fluid or air film (column 4, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Ide and add a low friction coating on the inner/sliding contact surface of the bearing, as taught by Lembke, for the purpose of enhancing sliding properties and reduce frictional wear while the pressure builds to support the shaft on a fluid or air film.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide, USP 5,489,155, in view of Oshikiri, JP 2015-140796.
Regarding claims 17-19, Ide, while disclosing an electric motor as noted in the rejection of claim 16 above, does not disclose that the motor is a brushless motor [clm 17], that the brushless motor comprises a frame for supporting the shaft, and the aerodynamic bearing is integrally formed with the frame [clm 18] and wherein a vacuum cleaner comprises the brushless motor [clm 19].
Oshikiri teaches a vacuum cleaner (see background in attached translation) comprising a brushless motor (12), wherein the brushless motor comprises a frame (26) for supporting a shaft (21) and a bearing element (33) being integrally formed with the frame (positioned inside and secured to the frame).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Ide and use the bearing in any previously known electric motor, particularly a brushless motor in a vacuum cleaner, as taught by Oshikiri, since substituting different known bearings into devices (vacuum cleaner and the motor) that were already previously known to use bearings provides the same predictable result of supporting the rotor element of the device relative to the stator element. Using previously known bearings in previously known devices is not new, novel or inventive.
Claim(s) 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide, USP 5,489,155, in view of Shigemori, JP H08140325.
Regarding claims 17-18 and 20, Ide, while disclosing an electric motor as noted in the rejection of claim 16 above, does not disclose that the motor is a brushless motor [clm 17], that the brushless motor comprises a frame for supporting the shaft, and the aerodynamic bearing is integrally formed with the frame [clm 18] and wherein a haircare appliance comprises the brushless motor [clm 20].
Shigemori teaches a haircare appliance (40) comprising a brushless motor (1a), wherein the brushless motor comprises a frame (44/45) for supporting a shaft (49) and a bearing element (48) being integrally formed with the frame (positioned inside and secured to the frame).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Ide and use the bearing in any previously known electric motor, particularly a brushless motor in a haircare appliance, as taught by Shigemori, since substituting different known bearings into devices (haircare appliance and the motor) that were already previously known to use bearings provides the same predictable result of supporting the rotor element of the device relative to the stator element. Using previously known bearings in previously known devices is not new, novel or inventive.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argument against the previous rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) is moot in view of the amendment and the argument regarding claim 14 has been found persuasive.
With regards to the prior art rejection Applicant argues that the amendment includes “continuous in form” in reference to the inner surface which was not indicated as being addressed by Ide. However, the totality of the amendment has caused the claim to become unclear for different reasons. If Applicant’s intent is to state the inner surface is one continuous member that is smooth or free of recesses or disruptions the Examiner would agree with the argument that Ide does not show this, however the amendment further added “substantially free of any recesses” to the end of the claim, “substantially free” does not excluded a recess which would be a disruption in the surface making the surface non-continuous contrary to Applicant’s argument and thus as best understood Ide appears to still be applicable.
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 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
Prosecution Insights