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 because the lines are not black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well defined, as required by 37 CFR 1.84(l), specifically in figures 5-7 the lines are generally gray and/or pixelated failing to meet the requirements of the rule.
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
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 4, the period in the middle of the line should be at the end of the line.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 claims 1 and 15, both claims define positions of the surface and distances that correspond to these positions, however it is unclear from the claim how the distances are actually being measured. A distance is a span between two objects or points however the claim does not set forth how the distance is being determined. The claim defines one point, the inner surface, but what is the other point? Without reciting the other point it is unclear how the measurement is meant to be determined. Is the first position the relaxed position with the distance being between the shaft and the surface making the second position the deformed position or is the first position the deformed position with the distance being between the outer surface of the bearing and the inner surface of the bearing with the second position being the relaxed position? Part of the issue appears to be that the distance is based off of the shaft, the first option above, however Applicant is attempting to not positively recite the shaft.
The term “low friction” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low friction” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What level of friction is permitted before the coating is no longer considered to be “low friction”?
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) 1-7, 9-13 and 16 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, and a second position in which the inner surface is located at a second radial distance, 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), wherein the inner surface is formed of at least one of an elastomeric material and a plastic material (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).
Regarding claim 2, Ide discloses that the aerodynamic bearing comprises 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 the elastomeric material and the 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).
Regarding claim 3, Ide discloses that the inner surface and the support member are integrally formed (see figure 8).
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 10, Ide discloses that the inner surface is cantilevered relative to the support member (in figure 2a element 12 are cantilevered pad elements similar to figure 4 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 11, Ide discloses that the inner surface comprises a plurality of discrete inner surfaces defining the channel (each pad surface of 12 or 40 is a discrete surface).
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(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lembke, USP 6,469,411.
Regarding claim 15, Lembke discloses an aerodynamic bearing (4 is an air gap making the bearing an aerodynamic bearing) comprising an inner surface (3, surface is best indicated by 7) defining a channel for receiving a shaft (1), the inner surface deformable between a first position (shown in figure 1) in which the inner surface is located at a first radial distance, and a second position (shown in figure 3) in which the inner surface is located at a second radial distance, the second radial distance greater than the first radial distance (the distance shown in figure 3 at the central region of 7 is greater than that shown in figure 1), wherein the inner surface is continuous in form such that the inner surface annularly defines the channel (3 is a continuous piece of material as illustrated).
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) 1, 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lembke, USP 6,469,411, in view of Takara, USP 4,969,797.
Regarding claim 1, Lembke discloses an aerodynamic bearing (4 is an air gap making the bearing an aerodynamic bearing) comprising an inner surface (best indicated by 7) defining a channel for receiving a shaft (1), the inner surface deformable between a first position (shown in figure 1) in which the inner surface is located at a first radial distance, and a second position (shown in figure 3) in which the inner surface is located at a second radial distance, the second radial distance greater than the first radial distance (the distance shown in figure 3 at the central region of 7 is greater than that shown in figure 1).
Lembke further discloses that 3 is a flexible sheet metal foil which flexes between the positions shown in figures 1 and 3 making it elastic. However, this disclosure does not result in the claimed feature of the inner surface being formed of at least one of an elastomeric material and a plastic material.
Takara teaches that in a similar bearing the thin layer of material (35/36) that bears the load and flexes to change the gap size between the layer and the shaft can be made of a metal foil or a plastic film (column 5, lines 17-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Lembke and use any previously known material for the elastic element, including plastic, as taught by Takara as an alternative to metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, Lembke further discloses that the inner surface is continuous in form (3 is a continuous piece of material as illustrated in Lembke).
Regarding claim 14, Lembke further discloses that the inner surface comprises a low friction coating (see column 4, lines 1-5).
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.
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