DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II and Species A1 and B1 encompassed by claims 9-15 and 17 and in the reply filed on 12/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8, 16 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/03/2025. It is noted that claim 18 is directed to a manufacturing process and dependent on withdrawn claim 8.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not directed to the elected invention of a roller assembly with end caps. 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).
Examiner’s Note
The claim amendment of 12/03/2025 includes the assembly of elected claim 9 which comprises the end piece of withdrawn claim 1. In response to the restriction requirement, Applicant should have amended claim 9 into independent form and including of the limitations of withdrawn claim 1. However, to advance the prosecution, the examiner considers all of the limitations of withdrawn claim 1 to be included in elected claim 9. As such, any objection to or rejection of withdrawn claim 1 is presented as if these limitations are included in claim 9. Applicant is requested, in response to this office action, to amend claim 9 into independent form and include all limitations of claim 1 in addition to any other amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 1-2, the limitation “in the form of a tube” should be amended to - - in [[the]] form of a tube - -.
In claim 1, line 3, the limitation “by an end of the end piece called the inner end” should be amended to - - by an inner end of the end piece
In claim 1, line 4, the limitation “and an end of the end piece called the outer end” should be amended to - - and an outer end of the end piece
In claim 1, lines 5-6, the limitation “the dimensions of which are adapted to allow it to be force-fitted from the inner end into one end of this profiled part” should be amended to - - the inner end is dimensioned such that the inner end is configured the profiled part - -.
In claim 1, lines 8-9, the limitation “said housing being delimited” is amended to - - said inner housing being delimited - -.
In claim 1, lines 11-14, the limitation “wherein the end piece is flexible and comprises, on its outer surface, a plurality of fins that project outward and extend longitudinally along the axis ZZ, said fins being separated by grooves that extend longitudinally along the axis ZZ in the same direction as the fins; and” is amended to - - wherein the end piece is flexible and comprises, on [[its]] an outer surface of the end piece, a plurality of fins that project outward and extend longitudinally along the axis ZZ, said fins being separated by a plurality of grooves that extend longitudinally along the axis ZZ in [[the]] same direction as the fins; and - -.
In claim 1, line 16, the limitation “the inner surface of the profiled part, are shaped to define, in the direction” is amended to - - [[the]] an inner surface of the profiled part, are shaped to define, in [[the]] a direction - -.
In claim 1, line 20, the limitation “the side of the inner end” is amended to - - [[the]] a side of the inner end - -.
In claim 1, line 23, the limitation “than the inner diameter” is amended to - - than [[the]] an inner diameter - -.
In claim 9, line 2, the limitation “in the form of a tube” should be amended to - - in [[the]] form of a tube - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-15 and 17 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.
Claim 9, line 3 recites the limitation “a longitudinal axis ZZ” which is unclear if this is the same axis recited in claim 1 or a different axis.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the part of the end piece" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the contact surface" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “the axis ZZ” and “the longitudinal axis ZZ of symmetry” which is unclear if these are the same axes or not.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the balancing operation of a roller" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the diameter of the cylindrical inner housing” in lines 7-8 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the housing” and “the inner housing” which is unclear if these terms are referring to same element or not.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "the length of the first housing” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the annular wall” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the wall” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the housing” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the entire outer cylindrical wall” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the contact surface" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the part of the end piece" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second transverse plane" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the transverse plane" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “the axis ZZ” and “the longitudinal symmetry axis ZZ” which is unclear if these are the same axes or not.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the diameter of working bearing" in lines 1-2 and the “diameter of adjustment bearing” in lines in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (US 4,339,159).
As applied to claim 9, Miller teaches an end piece (see housings 10 and 60 shown in Figures 1 to 6) intended for a profile in the form of a tube with a circular internal cross-section and a longitudinal axis, the dimensions of which are adapted to allow it to be force-fitted (see col. 3, lines 25-29) inside one end of this profile, said end piece comprising at least one internal cylindrical housing (see internal portion of the cylindrical part 14) intended to receive a rotating adjustment element or a rotating working element for mounting the profile in rotation on a fixed shaft (see Figure 4; furthermore, the characteristics of the profile and the shaft, as well as the rotating elements, are intended use limitations and thus, do not form part of the subject matter “end piece” of the claim), and said housing being terminated by an inwardly facing wall (12, 62) forming a stop for said rotating adjustment element or said rotating working element, the end piece being flexible (the passage in col. 2, lines 10-16 mentions that the outer ring of the bearing is rigid and that the end piece is thin, which implies that the housing can implicitly be considered flexible relative to the ring; moreover, this characteristic has a relative meaning) and comprising on its outer surface a plurality of fins (see Figures 1, 3, 5 and paragraph bridging cols. 2-3: longitudinal ribs 16 are formed on the outer surface of the housing) projecting outwards and extending longitudinally along the axis of the inner edge of the end piece (Figure 2 and the description in col. 2, lines 68 to col. 3, line 2 indicate that the ribs extend progressively ("tapered ends" 15) from the inner edge 12 to the outer edge 18) towards the outer edge of the end piece, said fins being separated by grooves extending longitudinally along the axis in the same direction as the fins (see Figures 1, 2, 3, 5), and in which the outer surface of the end piece, adapted to be in contact with the inner surface of the profile, is inscribed within two cylindrical surfaces of different diameters, a positioning surface (corresponding to the cylindrical surface 14) and a clamping surface (corresponding to the surface circumscribed by the vertices of the ribs 16), said positioning surface being located just after a guiding surface (formed by the end of the ribs 16) in the shape of a cone located on the side of the inner end of the end piece (surfaces 15 and 14 are contiguous), said positioning surface (14) being shaped to have a diameter equal to or less than the inner diameter of the profile and said clamping surface (15) being shaped to have a diameter greater than the inner diameter of the profile (see col. 3, line 28). Miller further teaches the assembly comprises at least one rotary working member (bearing assembly 20 pressed on left end of the roller 55 but not shown in Fig. 4, col. 3, lines 25-29 “ends of which are received” means both ends receive a bearing assembly) and at least one rotary adjustment member (bearing assembly 20 on right end of the roller 55, Fig. 4).
As applied to claim 11, Miller teaches the invention cited including wherein the rotary working member is a working bearing (bearing 20 on left end of the roller 55, Figs. 2 and 4).
As applied to claim 12, Miller teaches the invention cited including wherein the rotary adjustment member is an adjustment bearing adapter or an adjusting bearing (bearing 20 on right end of the roller 55, Figs. 2 and 4).
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 4,339,159) in view of Smith et al. (US 20060222277A1, hereinafter “Smith”).
As applied to claim 13, Miller teaches the invention cited including the working bearing is used for a production machine and the working bearing (bearing 20 on the left end of the roller 55) has an outer race (24) with a cylindrical portion (28) of the outer race (24) is held tightly within the cylindrical portion (14) of the casing (10, Fig. Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 1-9). As such, Miller teaches interference fit between the bearing and housing which implies that the outer diameter of outer race is larger than the inner diameter of housing but does not explicitly teach the claimed range of equal to or up to 0.1 mm greater than.
Smith teaches that it is well-known in the art of bearings to mount a bearing (2) into an opening of a hole (8) wherein the outer diameter of the outer ring (3) of the bearing (2) is greater than the inner diameter of the mounting hole (8) within a range of 0.033 mm to 0.198 mm which overlaps the claimed range of equal to or up to 0.1 mm (Figs. 102, paragraph [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an interference fit in the claimed range of up to 1 mm for the assembly of the working bearing and the housing of Miller, as taught by Smith, as a matter of use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). One having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that the interference fit of up to 0.1 mm would advantageously improve the connection and mounting of the working bearing in the housing of Miller such that the roller assembly would withstand the high stress operating condition thus, prolonging the operational life of the conveyor roller assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 14-15 and 17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sealey (US 5,944,161) teaches an end cap assembly for a roller tube of a conventional roller (title).
Gagnon (US 5,433,308) teaches a roller assembly including a tube and end caps and method for manufacturing the same (title, Fig. 1).
Greener et al. (US 4,339,158) teaches end cap assemblies for conveyor rollers (title).
Matthews (US 3,313,168) teaches idler roller for belt conveyors (title, Figs. 1-3).
Thomas (US 3,301,612) teaches a conveyor belt supporting roller including bearing housing (title, col. 1, lines 11-15).
Duttine (GB 2089938 A) teaches a roller of a roller conveyor including a bearing support ring (title, page 1, paragraphs [54] and [57]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
01/14/2026