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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 central (side) of the top foil formed in an undulating shape in the circumferential direction in combination with the back (clm 5) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Applicant has submitted a version of a standalone, unrolled top foil in figures 6 and 7, however this is not showing the assembled product. In the assembled products how do the undulations relate to the undulations in the backup foil? What does the assembled product look like? Submitting a standalone drawing illustrating the shape of the top foil is not illustrating the assembled product that is being claimed and in this case the arrangements of the parts relative to each other is critical to the practice of the invention and should be shown.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
However, at least the following issues have been observed:
The specification does not include a cross-reference to related applications, see 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP 211.
Reference character “a” is not in the listing of reference characters, if a listing of reference characters is used it should be complete. The list can also be removed as it is not a requirement in US practice.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7 should end using a colon, - -includes:- -.
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 1-11 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 clause spanning lines 8-13 is unclear. First it is unclear what a “central side” is. A center of something is just the center, it is unclear what the use of “side” is meant to do or limit the claim to. Is Applicant using “side” in this case in a non-traditional sense or in other words not referencing a side of an object? If so, this would be a lexicographer issue where Applicant has not clearly redefined the term. What is required to be a “central side”? Is it more than just being a feature in the middle or center of the apparatus? The recitation later states “at least a center position in an axial direction of the rotary shaft” which is attempting to define the “central side” however the frame of reference in this case is now the shaft however it is unclear if this now limiting the device to include a specific shaft position. Would someone be infringing if they used a longer shaft and the bearing was positioned on an axial end of the shaft and thus nowhere near a central axial position of the shaft? It is suggested that the claim be amended to use a different reference point to define the bearing, such as stating that the bearing has an axial length and then that the central back foil is in the middle of this length.
With regards to lines 11-13, this clause uses “side” in a similar manner which is confusing as explained above, in addressing lines 8-10 similar changes to avoid the use of “side”, such as defining an “axial end portion” or “axial end region” should be made. NOTE: any new phrasing must have antecedent basis support in the specification and changes to dependent claims would be required so phrasing is consistent throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear how many central side backup foils are being required. Claim 1 only positively sets forth one that includes a plurality of layers, however claim 2 states “each” central side back foil which is suggestive of more than one. Is there only one? Is Applicant attempting to reference the individual layers that make the central backup foil? Or is Applicant attempting to claim a system that includes multiple bearings and thus multiple central side backup foils?
Claim 3 uses “each” in the same manner as claim 2 and is indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 4 uses the phrase “a central side top foil” which is indefinite for the same reason as “central side backup foil”. As with claim 1 above it is suggested that “side” be excluded from the claim to avoid the confusion caused by referencing a central position as a “side” when, in the traditional sense, a side has a central region.
Claims 8 and 9 use “each” in the same manner as claim 2 and is indefinite for the same reason.
Claims 10 and 11 reference a “central side top foil” which is using “side” in the same manner as claim 1, the use of “side” renders the claim indefinite in same manner as claim 1. As suggested above the use of “side” is what appears to be inconsistent with the traditional sense of the word and it is suggested that this be avoided.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, and all claims depending therefrom, would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the claimed combination of a gas bearing device, in this case a foil bearing, that comprises a backup foil having a central region that comprises a plurality of layers of backup foil and end regions that include a single layer of backup foil or a plurality of layers with the plurality being a number few than the plurality of the central region. While using multiple bump or back foil layers is not new, see for example USP 12,331,786 and USP 6,964,522, the prior art of record does not disclose the specific layer arrangement between the central region and end regions that Applicant is claiming.
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