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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cone segment [clm 13/15] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Every embodiment has a curve and has no straight feature as a cone would have. No new matter should be entered.
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 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 10, 19 and 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.
In claim 10, the limitation “closed surface” is unclear. What makes a surface closed? Does it mean the surface needs to closed off by another surface? Or does it just mean the surface can be covered by another surface?
In claim 19, “special longitudinal section” is indefinite because it is unclear what makes the longitudinal section “special.” Can a longitude section be place at any area that is between the lobes and be called special? As best understood, the “special longitudinal section” will be place anywhere as needed to show the difference between the lobes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kleinschmidt (US 20180073553 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kleinschmidt discloses (in fig. 1) a hydrodynamic sliding bearing (fig. 1) comprising:
an inner ring element (10, which is at the same location as the instant application’s inner ring element);
an outer ring element (20),
wherein the inner ring element (10) and the outer ring element (20) are rotatable relative to each other about an axis of rotation (R);
wherein either the inner ring element (10) or the outer ring element (20) has a sliding surface (13.1, 13.2 or 21.1, 21.2) and the other one of the inner ring element (10) or the outer ring element (20) has a counter surface (13.1, 13.2 or 21.1, 21.2) corresponding with the sliding surface (13.1, 13.2 or 21.1, 21.2),
wherein the sliding surface (21.1, 21.2) has a non-circular shaped cross section and is tapered in axial extension (para. [0050] discloses the cross section is a truncated cone and figs. 3-8 shows these limitations).
Regarding claim 2, Kleinschmidt discloses (in fig. 1 and annotated fig. 4) the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein the cross section of the sliding surface (21.1, 21.2) comprises a first lobe (LB1) and a second lobe (LB2), wherein in axial extension, the first lobe (LB1) has a varying first radial distance to the axis of rotation (R, and fig. 1 shows that the first lobe decreases in radial distance from 21.1 to 21.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 2, wherein the first lobe (LB1) and the second lobe (LB2) when viewed in the cross-section are shaped as fixed circular arc segments.
Regarding claim 4, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 2, wherein when viewed in the cross-section each one of the lobes (LB1, LB2) has an offset or tilt to the axis of rotation (4, offset or tilt in this context seems to mean spaced from axis. Any bearing with these lobes would have that offset or tilt.).
Regarding claim 5, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 2, wherein the first lobe (LB1) and the second lobe (LB2) are separated by a lubricant supply groove (thrust face of 21.5) extending in axial direction.
Regarding claim 6, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 5, wherein a plurality of the lubricant supply grooves (thrust face of 21.5) are distributed as a regular circular pattern over the circumference of the sliding surface (21.1, 21.2).
Regarding claim 7, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 5, wherein the lubricant supply groove (thrust face of 21.5) extends over the entire axial extension of the sliding surface (21.1, 21.2).
Regarding claim 8, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 5, wherein a lubricant distribution groove (radial face of 21.5) overlies the lubricant supply groove (thrust face of 21.5), the lubricant distribution groove (radial face of 21.5) extending only partially in an axial extension of the sliding surface (21.1, 21.2).
Regarding claim 9, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 5, wherein the lubricant supply groove (thrust face of 21.5) is formed by a kink or a step between the first lobe (LB1) and the second lobe (LB2), wherein in axial direction an edge of the lubricant supply groove (thrust face of 21.5) has a varying second radial distance to the axis of rotation (R and there would be a varying second radial distance to the axial of rotation as it would be farther away from R when it’s toward the outside compared to being toward the R).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein the sliding surface (21.1, 21.2) is a closed surface in circumferential direction (there is a closed surface when the sliding surface is against the counter surface 13.1, 13.2).
Regarding claim 11, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein the sliding surface (21.1, 21.2) is segmented in circumferential direction and comprises a first segment (21.1) and a second segment (21.2), wherein the first segment (21.1) and the second segment (21.2) are seamlessly connected to each other.
Regarding claim 12, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein the counter surface (13.1, 13.2) has a circular shaped cross section, and is tapered in axial direction (13.2 has a circular shaped cross section when viewed from the bottom).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 12, wherein the counter surface (13.1, 13.2) is tapered in axial direction in the form of a cone segment (para. [0044] 13.1 has a truncated cone segment).
Regarding claim 14, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 12, wherein the counter surface (13.1, 13.2) is tapered in axial direction in the form of a spherical segment (there is a curve where 13.1 is, so there is a spherical segment).
Regarding claim 15, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein the sliding surface (12.1, 12.2) is tapered in axial direction in the form of a cone segment (para. [0050], 12.1 has a truncated cone segment).
Regarding claim 16, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein the sliding surface (13.1, 13.2) is arranged on the inner ring element (10) and has a concave shape in axial direction.
Regarding claim 17, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein the sliding surface (21.1, 21.2) is applied on the outer ring element (20) and has a convex shape in axial direction.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dillmann (DE 4217268 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Dillmann discloses (in annotated fig. 1) a hydrodynamic sliding bearing (1) comprising:
an inner ring element (shaft, not shown in fig. 1);
an outer ring element (fig. 1),
wherein the inner ring element (shaft) and the outer ring element (fig. 1) are rotatable relative to each other about an axis of rotation (AoR);
wherein either the inner ring element or the outer ring element (fig. 1) has a sliding surface (inner surface of fig. 1) and the other one of the inner ring element (shaft) or the outer ring element has a counter surface (outer surface of shaft) corresponding with the sliding surface (inner surface of fig. 1),
wherein the sliding surface (inner surface of fig. 1) comprises a first non-circular shaped profile (P1) and a second non-circular shaped profile (P2) being in axial offset to each other,
wherein the first noncircular shaped profile (P1) and the second non-circular shaped profile (P2) are of different dimensions (they have different dimensions at different areas),
wherein the sliding surface (inner surface of fig. 1) is an extrusion of the first non-circular shaped profile (P1) merging into the second non-circular shaped profile (P2) along guide paths (GP1, GP2,).
PNG
media_image2.png
528
785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Dillmann discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 21, wherein the first non-circular shaped profile (P1) and the second non-circular shaped profile (P2) of the sliding surface (inside surface of fig. 1) have an offset halved shape.
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinschmidt (US 20180073553 A1) in view of Rudolph (US 20210310514 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 1, but does not disclose the non-circular shaped cross section of the sliding surface has an elliptical shape.
Rudolph teaches the non-circular shaped cross section of the sliding surface has an elliptical shape for the purpose of specially intended load distribution on the hydrodynamic sliding bearing (para. [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the non-circular shaped cross section of the sliding surface to have an elliptical shape, as taught by Rudoph, in the hydrodynamic sliding bearing of Kleinschmidt for the purpose of specially intended load distribution on the hydrodynamic sliding bearing (para. [0035]).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinschmidt (US 20180073553 A1) alone.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Kleinschmidt (in annotated fig. 1) discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing comprising a special longitudinal section plane (SP in annotated fig. 4), the sliding surface (21.1, 21.2) has a first radius (R1), and the counter surface (13.1, 13.2) has a second radius (R2), wherein the first radius (R1) and the second radius (R2) are offset to each other by a clearance (CL) but does not disclose the clearance has a magnitude which is in the range of 0.00005 to 0.002 multiplied by the first radius.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the clearance have a magnitude which is in the range of 0.00005 to 0.002 multiplied by the first radius, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the clearance have a magnitude which is in the range of 0.00005 to 0.002 multiplied by the first radius, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific size of the clearance solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (the claimed dimension lacks any clear criticality) and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless if the clearance have a magnitude which is in the range of 0.00005 to 0.002 multiplied by the first radius or not. For example, if the clearance is too large, too much lubricant will flow between the rings and if the clearance is too small, not enough lubricant can flow between the rings, which would affect the efficiency of the hydrodynamic bearing.
PNG
media_image3.png
510
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Kleinschmidt discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 19, wherein the special longitudinal section plane (SP in annotated fig. 4) is located at a circumferential distance of 10° to 30° to the lubricant supply groove (thrust face of 21.5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Berger (US 20180023620 A1) discloses a hydrodynamic plain bearing.
Bauza (US 20050242258 A1) discloses another hydrodynamic plain bearing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIMEE T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 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 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.
/AIMEE TRAN NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617