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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is longer than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 3, “the bearing ring” should be changed to –the first bearing ring-- for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 first abutment and second abutment [clm 8], an arm portion and elongated hole [clm 9], a seat for a latching element, a latching element, latching recess, and a releasable latch [clm 10], a holding or table element and a component of the interior of the vehicle [cm 12], and a seat for a spring-loaded deflectable latching element, a spring-loaded deflectable latching element, latching recess, and a releasable latch [clm 16] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 9, 10, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 8, the limitation “the restricting means comprises at least one first abutment arranged on the first bearing element and at least one second abutment arranged on the second bearing element, wherein the two abutments associated to one another interact for restricting the relative rotation of the two bearing elements to one another” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the description was not explicit in describing any structure that would convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor has possession of the restricting means which are first and second abutment. Where are the abutment located or installed? What are their shapes? How do they restrict the two bearing elements?
In claim 9, the limitation “the restricting means comprises an arm portion arranged on one of the two bearing elements and extending axially therefrom that engages axially into an elongated hole extending circumferentially on the other of the two bearing elements for restricting the relative pivoting of the two bearing elements to one another to a predetermined angle range” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the description was not explicit in describing any structure that would convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor has possession of the restricting means which is an arm portion and elongated hole. What is considered an arm portion? Where are the arm portion and elongated hole located on the invention? What are their shapes? How are they installed on the invention? How do they restrict the two bearing elements?
In claim 10, the limitation “at least one of the two bearing elements has a seat for a latching element accommodated therein, and the other of the two bearing elements comprises at least one latching recess associated to the latching element for accommodating at least partially the latching element for providing a releasable latch for a predetermined relative rotary position of the two bearing elements to one another” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the description was not explicit in describing any structure that would convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor has possession of the seat with a latching element and one latching recess associated to the latching element having a releasable latch. How do all these elements work together? Where are they located or installed?
In claim 12, the limitation “the bearing is arranged for a pivotable fixing of a holding or a table element to a component of the interior of the vehicle, wherein the holding or table element is fixed to one of the bearing elements and the component of the interior to the other of the two bearing elements” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the description was not explicit in describing any structure that would convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor has possession of a holding or table element with a component of the interior of the vehicle and their connection to the bearing elements. Where is the holding or table element positioned or installed to a component of the interior of the vehicle with the bearing? What are their shapes compared to the bearing?
In claim 16, the limitation “at least one of the two bearing elements has a seat for a spring-loaded deflectable latching element, and the other of the two bearing elements comprises at least one latching recess associated to the spring-loaded deflectable latching element for accommodating at least partially the spring-loaded deflectable latching element for providing a releasable latch for a predetermined relative rotary position of the two bearing elements to one another” as not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the description was not explicit in describing any structure that would convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor or a joint inventor has possession of the seat with a spring-loaded latching element and one latching recess associated to the spring-loaded latching element having a releasable latch. How do all these elements work together? Where are they located or installed?
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 8-12 and 16 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 8, the limitation “the restricting means comprises at least one first abutment arranged on the first bearing element and at least one second abutment arranged on the second bearing element, wherein the two abutments associated to one another interact for restricting the relative rotation of the two bearing elements to one another” is unclear. It is unclear how the first and second abutment are restricting the two bearing elements. Are the abutments different surfaces? Are they different structures?
In claim 9, the limitation “the restricting means comprises an arm portion arranged on one of the two bearing elements and extending axially therefrom that engages axially into an elongated hole extending circumferentially on the other of the two bearing elements for restricting the relative pivoting of the two bearing elements to one another to a predetermined angle range” is unclear. It is unclear how the arm portion and the elongated hole is restricting the two bearing elements. How do they work together to stop the two bearing elements from pivoting?
In claim 10, the limitation “at least one of the two bearing elements has a seat for a latching element accommodated therein, and the other of the two bearing elements comprises at least one latching recess associated to the latching element for accommodating at least partially the latching element for providing a releasable latch for a predetermined relative rotary position of the two bearing elements to one another” is unclear. It is unclear how a seat and a latching recess for the latching element are working together. How do they help the latching element provide a releasable latch for a predetermined relative rotary position of the two bearing elements to one another?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the interior" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 12, the limitation “the bearing is arranged for a pivotable fixing of a holding or a table element to a component of the interior of the vehicle, wherein the holding or table element is fixed to one of the bearing elements and the component of the interior to the other of the two bearing elements” is unclear. How does the bearing connect to the holding or table element?
In claim 16, the limitation “at least one of the two bearing elements has a seat for a spring-loaded deflectable latching element, and the other of the two bearing elements comprises at least one latching recess associated to the spring-loaded deflectable latching element for accommodating at least partially the spring-loaded deflectable latching element for providing a releasable latch for a predetermined relative rotary position of the two bearing elements to one another” is unclear. It is unclear how a seat and a latching recess for the spring-loaded latching element are working together. How do they help the spring-loaded latching element provide a releasable latch for a predetermined relative rotary position of the two bearing elements to one another?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a use of the axial and radial sliding bearing without significant more, the use not being a new and useful process, a machine, manufacture or composition of matter and there is no recited step in using the bearing recited.
A use claim that fails to recite a step ultimately fails to recite a claim without of the statutory classes under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2173.05(q) which explains that one cannot claim a new use for something as it is not among the categories of invention, even assuming the use of this type of part is new.
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 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selzer (US 20160053809 A1) in view of Wolfram (US 4575145 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 have 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 are 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 that the radial sliding rings reconfigured as respective ring discs so that the sliding functionality between the first and the second bearing element is provided by three sliding elements, each of them in one piece.
Wolfram teaches (in fig. 1) the sliding elements (56, 60, 58) have at least one axial sliding ring (60) to be arranged between radial surfaces associated with one another of the two bearing elements and two radial sliding rings (56, 58, col. 2, lines 49-54 discloses these elements as wear resistance thrust washer that has Teflon) are arranged between axial surfaces associated with one another of the two bearing elements, wherein the axial sliding ring (60) is constructed in one piece and has a sleeve shape and that the radial sliding rings (56, 58) are configured as respective ring discs so that the sliding functionality between the first and the second bearing element (8, 48, 22, 40) is provided by three sliding elements (56, 60, 58), each of them in one piece for the purpose of eliminating fretting and stick-slip between the bearing surfaces (col. 3, lines 23-55).
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 sliding elements, as taught by Wolfram, in the axial and radial bearing of Selzer as it is substituting one known sliding elements arrangement for another for the purpose of achieving the predictable results of eliminating fretting and stick-slip between the bearing surfaces (col. 3, lines 23-55).
PNG
media_image1.png
350
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Selzer in view of Wolfram teaches (in Selzer annotated fig. 1A and Wolfram fig. 1) 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 the sum of the axial heights of the two radial sliding rings (Wolfram 56, 58) 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 (Wolfram 60).
Regarding claim 3, Selzer in view of Wolfram 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 Wolfram 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 Wolfram 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 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 Wolfram 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 Wolfram 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 Wolfram 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 Wolfram 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 Wolfram 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.
Conclusion
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