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.
In claim 7, the phrase “restricting means” invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f). “Restricting means” is interpreted to be restricting the relative movement of the two bearing elements to one another (para. [0019]). Examples are an abutment (para. [0019]) or an arm portion (para. [0020]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-7 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selzer (US 20160053809 A1) in view of Komata (US 5710470 A).
Regarding claim 1, Selzer discloses (in annotated fig. 1A) an axial and radial sliding bearing (fig. 1A) comprising
a first bearing element (11) includes a first bearing ring (11),
a second bearing element (4, 5, 12),
wherein the bearing elements are arranged rotatably to one another about a bearing axis (A),
and the second bearing element (4, 5, 12) forms a substantially U-shaped cross-section in order to at least partially accommodate the first bearing ring (11)
sliding elements (20) made of a polymer material (abstract) that are arranged between the first (11) and the second bearing element (4, 5, 12) in order to axially and radially decouple the bearing elements,
wherein the second bearing element (4, 5, 12) comprises two bearing disc portions spaced from one another (4, 12) and at least one bearing cylinder portion (5) arranged between the two bearing disc portions (4, 12) and coaxially oriented to the first bearing ring (11).
Selzer does not disclose the sliding elements include at least one axial sliding ring to be arranged between radial surfaces associated with one another of the two bearing elements and two radial sliding rings to be arranged between axial surfaces associated with one another of the two bearing elements, wherein the axial sliding ring is constructed in one piece and has a sleeve shape and wherein the radial sliding rings reconfigured as respective ring discs each having opposite flat sliding surfaces, so that a sliding functionality between the first and the second bearing element is provided by three separate sliding elements, each of them in one piece.
Komata teaches (in fig. 2) the sliding elements (12a, 13a and 14a) include at least one axial sliding ring (12a) to be arranged between radial surfaces associated with one another of the two bearing elements (10, 16, 27) and two radial sliding rings (13a and 14a) to be arranged between axial surfaces associated with one another of the two bearing elements (10, 16, 27), wherein the axial sliding ring (12a) is constructed in one piece and has a sleeve shape and wherein the radial sliding rings (13a, 14a) reconfigured as respective ring discs (13a, 14a) each having opposite flat sliding surfaces, so that a sliding functionality between the first and the second bearing element ((10, 16, 27) is provided by three separate sliding elements (12a, 13a, and 14a), each of them in one piece.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sliding elements of Selzer with the three separate sliding elements of Komata for the predictable results of providing sliding between the elements in the bearing.
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the two-part sliding elements to be three parts, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
PNG
media_image1.png
350
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Selzer in view of Komata teaches (in Selzer annotated fig. 1A and Komata fig. 2) the axial and radial sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein an axial height of the bearing cylinder portion (Selzer 5) is substantially equal to a sum of the axial heights of the two radial sliding rings (Komata 13a, 14a) and of axial height of the first bearing ring (Selzer 11) and moreover is substantially equal to an axial height of the axial sliding ring (Komata 12a, the claim says “substantially” so the combination has this limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Selzer in view of Komata teaches (in Selzer annotated fig. 1A) the axial and radial sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein the bearing cylinder portion (5) is configured in one piece with one of the two bearing disc portions (4) to which the other of the two bearing disc portions (12) is fixed.
Regarding claim 4, Selzer in view of Komata teaches (in Selzer annotated fig. 1A) the axial and radial sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein the bearing cylinder portion (5) is configured as a full cylinder and at least one of the two bearing disc portions (12) is fixed to the bearing cylinder portion (5) by means of with a screw connection (SC, Selzer para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 5, Selzer in view of Komata teaches (in Selzer annotated fig. 1A) the axial and radial sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein a multitude of axial ducts (SC, Selzer para. [0034]) arranged radially spaced from an axis (A) of the first bearing ring (11) are configured through the two bearing disc portions (4, 12) and the at least one bearing cylinder portion (5) arranged between the two bearing disc portions (4, 12) and oriented centered and coaxially thereto.
Regarding claim 6, Selzer in view of Komata teaches the axial and radial sliding bearing according to claim 1, but does not teach the radial dimension of the bearing is less than 80 mm, and an axial dimension of the bearing is less than 20 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 radial dimension of the bearing is less than 80 mm, and an axial dimension of the bearing is less than 20 mm, 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 radial dimension of the bearing is less than 80 mm, and an axial dimension of the bearing is less than 20 mm, 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.
Regarding claim 7, Selzer in view of Komata teaches (in Selzer annotated fig. 1A) the axial and radial sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein the bearing comprises a restricting means (SC) for restricting a relative movement of the two bearing elements (12, and 4, 5) to one another.
Regarding claim 13, Selzer in view of Komata teaches (in Selzer annotated fig. 1A) the axial and radial sliding bearing teaches the axial and radial sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein the bearing cylinder portion (5) is configured as a full cylinder and at least one of the two bearing disc portions (4, 12) is fixed to the bearing cylinder portion (5) with a screw connection (SC, Selzer para. [0034]) extending coaxially to the first bearing element (11).
Regarding claim 14, Selzer in view of Komata teaches the axial and radial sliding bearing according to claim 1, but does not teach a radial dimension of the bearing is less than or equal to 60 mm and an axial dimension of the bearing is less than or equal to 16 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 radial dimension of the bearing is less than 60 mm, and an axial dimension of the bearing is less than 16 mm, 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 radial dimension of the bearing is less than 60 mm, and an axial dimension of the bearing is less than 16 mm, 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.
Regarding claim 15, Selzer in view of Komata teaches the axial and radial sliding bearing according to claim 1, but does not teach a radial dimension of the bearing is less than or equal to 40 mm and an axial dimension of the bearing is less than or equal to 12 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 radial dimension of the bearing is less than 40 mm, and an axial dimension of the bearing is less than 12 mm, 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 radial dimension of the bearing is less than 40 mm, and an axial dimension of the bearing is less than 12 mm, 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.
Regarding claim 17, Selzer in view of Komata teaches (in Komata annotated fig. 2) the axial and radial sliding bearing according to claim 1 wherein the sleeve shape of the axial sliding ring (12a) includes a cylindrical inner circumferential surface (ICS) and a cylindrical outer circumferential surface (OCS).
Regarding claim 18, Selzer in view of Komata teaches (in Komata annotated fig. 2)the axial and radial sliding bearing according to claim 1 wherein the sleeve shape of the axial sliding ring (12a) includes a cylindrical inner circumferential surface (ICS) and a cylindrical outer circumferential surface (OCS), wherein both cylindrical inner and outer circumferential surfaces are sliding surfaces (the parts can move relative to each other along these surfaces during normal bearing operation or when there is slippage).
PNG
media_image2.png
643
784
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selzer (US 20160053809 A1) in view of Komata (US 5710470 A) and in further view of Rosensweig (US 3612630 A).
Regarding claim 11, Selzer in view of Komata teaches an axial and radial sliding bearing according to claim 1 but does not teach a system including a vehicle and an axial and radial sliding bearing in an interior of the vehicle.
Rosensweig teaches a system including a vehicle and an axial and radial sliding bearing (col. 1, lines 23-24 “The entrapment of the pad by magnetic fluids may be incorporated into radial bearings, thrust bearings, or combinations of both.”) in an interior of the vehicle (col. 4, lines 33-37 lists different vehicles the thrust and radial bearings can be used in like space vehicles and submarines).
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 system, as taught by Rosensweig, and substitute it with an axial and radial sliding bearing of Selzer in view of Komata, as it is substituting one known bearing for another that performs the same function.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the specification objection, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
With regards to the claim objection, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
With regards to the drawing objection, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-15, filed 06/17/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
New prior art Komata (US 5710470 A) is used in combination with the primary prior art Selzer (US 20160053809 A1) as it shows the sliding elements 12a, 13a, and 14a are three different elements. Even so, as stated above, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the two-part sliding elements be in three parts, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Meaning that the sliding element 20 of Selzer can be constructed into three different parts instead of two different parts.
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 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
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
