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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
“Connection means” in claims 22-23 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The recited function is supported in paras. [0042]-[0044].
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 3-4, 12-14, 19, 22, and 26 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 3, the limitation “a lateral play is provided between the linear guide element that is part of the supporting guide and the corresponding rail element” is unclear as claim 1 recites that “a play-free or low play sliding guiding is provided by the guide unit.” Is this the same play as the play in claim 1? How can something be play-free or low play if there is lateral play?
In claim 13, the limitation “the oval cross section of the inner contour of the linear guide element is composed of two divided circle arcs and one straight line” is unclear. How are the circles each individually divided? Possibly changing “the oval cross section of the inner contour of the linear guide element is composed of two divided circle arcs and one straight line” to --the oval cross section of the inner contour of the linear guide element is composed of two circular arcs divided by a straight line section—would make the limitation clearer.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a lateral play" but claim 14 recites “the play.” Is this the same play or a different play?
In claim 19, the limitation “the inner contour of the linear guide element has a width which is larger than the width or the diameter of the outer contour of the plain bearing element” is unclear. In claim 4, it seems to state that the cross sections are formed the same, but in claim 19, they have different widths. How can they both be same and have different widths?
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the guide axis" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As best understood, it seems like this claim should be depending on claim 20.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the inner contour of the plain bearing element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As best understood, it seems like this claim should be depending on claim 16.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the centre axis" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As best understood, it seems like this claim should be depending on claim 16.
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) 1-11, 15-18 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samec (DE 3743086 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Samec discloses (in annotated fig. 1 and annotated fig. 2) a linear plain bearing (fig. 1) comprising a rail (4) and a carriage (6) with a complementary linear guide (32, 38) which cooperates with the rail (4),
wherein the rail (4) is formed as a single-piece double rail (4) with two parallel rail elements (12, 22) in a rail plane and the linear guide (fig. 1) of the carriage (6) has two parallel linear guide elements (surface of 6 supporting 54 and 40) fitting the double rail (4),
wherein one of the rail elements (12) and one of the linear guide elements (surface of 6 supporting 54) form a guide unit (GU1),
in that a play-free or low-play sliding guiding is provided by the guide unit (11, abstract),
and the second rail element (22) with the second linear guide element (surface 6 of supporting 40) forms a supporting guide (GU2).
PNG
media_image1.png
317
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
536
539
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Samec discloses the linear plain bearing (fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein at least one rail element (22) of the double rail (4) has a cross section with an outer contour (surface of 22) and at least one linear guide element (surface 6 of supporting 40) of the carriage (6) has a cross section with a complementary inner contour (IC2).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Samec discloses the linear plain bearing (fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein a lateral play (PL) is provided between the linear guide element (surface of 6 supporting 40) that is part of the supporting guide (GU2) and the corresponding rail element (22).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Samec discloses the linear plain bearing (fig. 1) according to claim 3, wherein the linear guide element (surface of 6 supporting 54) that corresponds to the supporting guide (GU1) has an inner contour (IC1), and in that the cross section of the inner contour (IC1) is further formed as the cross section of the outer contour (50) of the allocated rail element (12).
Regarding claim 5, Samec discloses the linear plain bearing (fig. 1) according to claim 2, wherein the rail element (12) of the double rail (4) provided with an outer contour forms a rail head (16).
Regarding claim 6, Samec discloses (in annotated fig. 2) the linear plain bearing (fig. 1) according to claim 5, wherein the rail head (16) has a polygonal, a circular, or a cross section with cylindrical outer contour (50).
Regarding claim 7, Samec discloses the linear plain bearing (fig. 1) according to claim 5, wherein the rail head (16) is supported by a bar (bar part of 12) of the rail element (12).
Regarding claim 8, Samec discloses the linear plain bearing (fig. 1) according to claim 7, wherein the bar (bar part of 12) is arranged on a main element (8) of the double rail (4).
Regarding claim 9, Samec discloses (in annotated fig. 2) the linear plain bearing (fig. 1) according to claim 7, wherein the linear guide element (surface of 6 supporting 54) provided with an inner contour has a C-shaped cross section (34) with a lateral opening (56).
Regarding claim 10, Samec discloses the linear plain bearing (fig. 1) according to claim 9, wherein the bar (bar of 12) of the double rail (4) fits through the lateral opening (56) of the C-shaped cross section (34) of the linear guide element (surface of 6 supporting 54).
Regarding claim 11, Samec discloses the linear plain bearing (fig. 1) according to claim 2, wherein the linear guide element (surface of 6 supporting 54) that is included in the guide unit (GU1) has an inner contour (IC1) with a circular cross section (34).
Regarding claim 15, Samec discloses the linear plain bearing (fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein a plain bearing element (54, 40) is arranged between at least one of the rail elements (12, 22) and one of the linear guide elements (surface of 6 supporting 54 and 40).
Regarding claim 16, Samec discloses the linear plain bearing (fig. 1) according to claim 15, wherein the plain bearing element (54, 40) has a sleeve-shaped plain bearing body with an inner contour (68, 40ic), an outer contour (66, 40oc), a centre axis (CAx, CAx2) and a lateral opening (56).
Regarding claim 17, Samec discloses the linear plain bearing (fig. 1) according to claim 15, wherein both the plain bearing element (40) provided on the side of the guide unit (GU1) and the plain bearing element (54) provided on the side of the supporting guide (GU2) nestle up against the cross section of the corresponding rail element (12, 22).
Regarding claim 18, Samec discloses the linear plain bearing (1) according to claim 17, wherein the plain bearing element (54) on the side of the guide unit (GU1) also nestles up, with its outer contour (66), against the cross section of the linear guide element (surface of 6 supporting 54).
Regarding claim 26, as best understood, Samec discloses the linear plain bearing (1) according to claim 16, wherein the inner contour of the plain bearing element (54) is provided with pocket-shape recesses or with groove-shaped recesses (GV), which extend parallel to the centre axis (CAx) or helically around the centre axis (CAx).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec (DE 3743086 A1) in view of Sun (CN 102852972 A).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Samec discloses the linear plain bearing (1) according to claim 3 but does not disclose the inner contour of the linear guide element that is included in the supporting guide is provided with an oval cross section.
Sun teaches (in fig. 1 and annotated fig. 2) the inner contour of the linear guide element (LGE) that is included in the supporting guide is provided with an oval cross section (OCS) for the purpose of reducing minimal abrasion, improving service life, and reducing assembling difficulty (para. [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the linear guide element be provided with an oval cross section for the purpose of reducing minimal abrasion, improving service life, and reducing assembling difficulty (para. [0009]).
PNG
media_image3.png
317
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec (DE 3743086 A1).
Regard claim 14, as best understood, Samec discloses the linear plain bearing (1) according to one of claim 3 but does not disclose the play provided in the supporting guide is between 0.05-1.00 mm.
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 play provided in the supporting guide is between 0.05-1.00 mm for the purpose of positioning accuracy and decreasing unwanted movement, 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.
Claim(s) 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec (DE 3743086 A1) in view of Wang (CN 207975131 U).
Regarding claim 20, Samec discloses the linear plain bearing (fig. 1) according to claim 1 but does not disclose at least one of the linear guide elements has two guide sections arranged in a row, and in that the guide sections lie in a guide axis, and in that at least one of the linear guide elements has two supporting sections arranged in a row, and in that the supporting sections lie in a supporting axis.
Wang teaches (in annotated fig. 2) at least one of the linear guide elements (surface of left 3) has two guide sections (GS1, GS2) arranged in a row, and in that the guide sections (GS1, GS2) lie in a guide axis (F1), and in that at least one of the linear guide elements (surface of right 3) has two supporting sections (GS3, GS4) arranged in a row, and in that the supporting sections (GS3, GS4) lie in a supporting axis (T2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have one of the linear guide element have two guide sections and the other linear guide element have two supporting sections, as taught by Wang, in the linear plain bearing of Samec for the purpose of higher load capacity and simple installation (para. [0021]).
PNG
media_image4.png
470
584
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Samec in view of Wang teaches (in Samec annotated fig. 1 and Wang annotated fig. 2) the linear plain bearing according to claim 20, wherein at least one of the guide sections (Wang GS1, GS2) of the first linear guide element (Samec surface of 6 supporting 54) and at least one of the supporting sections (Wang GS3, GS4) of the second linear guide element (Samec surface of 6 supporting 40) is provided with a plain bearing element (Samec 54, 40).
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, Samec in view of Wang teaches (in Samec annotated fig. 1 and Wang annotated fig. 2) the linear plain bearing according to claim 20 but does not teach a connection means is provided for the plain bearing element, by which it can be connected to the linear guide element positionally fixed relative to the guide axis.
Wang further (in Wang annotated fig. 2 and fig. 6) teaches a connection means (31a) is provided for the plain bearing element (3), by which it can be connected (via the locking recesses 22a) to the linear guide element (surface of 2 supporting 3) positionally fixed relative to the guide axis (F1) for the purpose of securing the elements together (para. [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connection means and the locking recesses between the linear guide element and the plain bearing element, as further taught by Wang, in the linear plain bearing of Samec in view of Wang for the purpose of securing the elements together (para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 23, as best understood, Samec in view of Wang teaches (in Wang fig. 6) the linear plain bearing according to claim 22, wherein an adhesive or a positive-locking connection (31a) is provided as the connection means (31a).
Regarding claim 24, as best understood, Samec in view of Wang teaches (in Samec annotated fig. 1 and Wang fig. 6) the linear plain bearing according to claim 23, wherein, as part of the positive-locking connection, a locking recess (Wang 22a) is provided in the inner contour (IC1, IC2) of the linear guide element (Samec surface of 6 supporting 54 and 40).
Regarding claim 25, as best understood, Samec in view of Wang teaches (in Samec annotated fig. 1 and Wang fig. 6) the linear plain bearing according to claim 23, wherein the plain bearing element (Samec 54, 40) is provided, as a complementary part of the positive-locking connection, with a protrusion (Wang 31a) on its outer contour (Samec 66, 40oc) which is configured to fit in the locking recess (Wang 22a) of the linear guide element (Samec surface of 6 supporting 54 and 40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the combination set forth in claims 13 and 19.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the linear plain bearing wherein the oval cross section of the inner contour of the linear guide element is composed of two circular arcs divided by a straight line section in combination with the other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the linear plain bearing wherein, on the side of the supporting guide, the inner contour of the linear guide element has a width which is larger than the width or the diameter of the outer contour of the plain bearing element, with the result that a lateral play relative to the plain bearing element is formed in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koching (US 20240191748 A1) discloses a sliding bearing with multi-part carriage.
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