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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “the sealing portion axially covers the centrifugal disk” (claim 4)(As shown in Fig. 2 – 5, sealing portion 16 appears to radially cover the centrifugal disk 5) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 Objections
Claims 2 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, lines 2 – 3, “the first seal lip and the second seal lip have an angle with respect to a radial plane which is selected between 20° and 60°” should read - - the first seal lip and the second seal lip have an angle selected between 20° and 60° with respect to a radial plane - -.
Claim 10, line 2, “two bearing rings” should read - - the two bearing rings - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kim et al. USP 11067130.
Claims 1 and 10, Kim discloses a cassette seal cassette seal (sealing device 100)(Fig. 1)(col. 5, l. 30), which can be positioned between two bearing rings (outer cylindrical ring 210 and inner cylindrical ring 220)(col. 6, ll. 5 – 6) which are arranged coaxially with respect to one another and which are rotatable with respect to one another, comprising: an annular centrifugal disk (second frame 130)(col. 5, l. 36), which is fixed in a rotationally fixed manner to one of the bearing rings and a seal disk (first insert body 101)(col. 5, l. 30), which is fixed in a rotationally fixed manner to the other of the bearing rings, wherein an elastic (col. 7, ll. 54 – 56: “[t]he first sealing part 120 and the second sealing part 140 may be made of a rubber material”), annular seal element (first sealing part 120)(col. 5, l. 34) is connected to the seal disk, and the seal element has a plurality of contactless seal lips (Fig. 2), each of which extends from the seal element in a direction of the centrifugal disk, such that a labyrinth (labyrinth-shaped gap 150)(col. 8, l. 24) is defined between the seal element and the centrifugal disk, wherein the seal element has a first seal lip (first lip baffle 122)(col. 9, l. 37) extending radially outwards and axially in the direction of the centrifugal disk, a second seal lip (second lip baffle 124)(col. 10, ll. 42 – 43) which is offset radially inwards and axially with respect to the first seal lip in the direction of the centrifugal disk and which extends radially outwards and axially in the direction of the centrifugal disk, and a third seal lip (third lip baffle 126)(col. 11, l. 26) which extends radially outwards and axially in the direction of the centrifugal disk and which is arranged offset radially inwards and axially in the direction of the centrifugal disk with respect to the second seal lip, wherein a circumferential first groove (first cavity 151)(Fig. 3)(col. 8, ll. 28 – 29) extending in the radial direction is formed between the first seal lip and the seal element, and a circumferential second groove (second cavity 153)(col. 8, l. 30) extending in the radial direction is formed between the second seal lip and the seal element, and a circumferential third groove (third cavity 155)(col. 10, l. 63) extending in the radial direction is formed between the third seal lip and the seal element.
Claim 10, Kim discloses a rolling bearing (col. 5, l. 28: “wheel bearing”) having the cassette seal 100 which is positioned between the two bearing rings which are arranged coaxially with respect to one another and which are rotatable relative to one another.
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. USP 11067130.
Claim 2, Kim does not expressly disclose the first seal lip and the second seal lip having an angle selected between 20° and 60° with respect to a radial plane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim, such that the first seal lip and the second seal lip has an angle selected between 20° and 60° with respect to a radial plane, since it was 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. USP 11067130 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Otsuki USPGPUB 20040046441.
Claim 8, Kim discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 8, except for the seal element being formed from an electrically conductive material.
Otsuki teaches that it was known to provide a seal element formed from an electrically conductive material in a similar cassette seal device ([0037], ll. 4 – 9: “the inboard sealing member 8 used to seal the inboard open end of the annular working space similarly includes an electroconductive core metal 11, made of, for example, steel, and an electroconductive elastic element 12 made of, for example, an electroconductive rubber material and secured to the core metal 11”), in order to provide a conductive path that diverts harmful electrical currents away from the rolling elements and raceways ([0041], ll. 1 – 19: “since the outboard and inboard sealing members 7 and 8 are made of an electroconductive material, an electric current between the inner and outer members 2 and 1 flows through those outboard and inboard sealing members 7 and 8. More specifically, an electrostatic charge developed by and in the tire of the vehicle wheel 16 is conducted from the inner member 2 to the outer member 1 through the outboard and inboard sealing members 7 and 8 and then from the outer member 1 to the knuckle 14 by way of the bolts 19, finally being discharged to the vehicle body structure. Because of this, no spark will be induced by the electrostatic charge at the interfaces between the raceways 5 in the inner member 2 and the rolling elements 3 or between the raceways 4 in the outer member 1 and the rolling elements 3 even though the films of the lubricant oil present at those interfaces are insufficient. Hence, there is no possibility that the vehicle mounted radio receiver set will be adversely affected by noises which would otherwise result from the sparks”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cassette seal device of Kim, such that the seal element is formed from an electrically conductive material, as taught by Otsuki, for the purpose of providing a conductive path that diverts harmful electrical currents away from the rolling elements and raceways.
Claim 9, Kim discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 9, except for the seal disk and/or the centrifugal disk being electrically conductive.
Otsuki teaches that it was known to provide a seal disk and/or a centrifugal disk that is electrically conductive in a similar cassette seal device ([0037], ll. 4 – 9”), in order to provide a conductive path that diverts harmful electrical currents away from the rolling elements and raceways ([0041], ll. 1 – 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cassette seal device of Kim, such that the seal disk and/or the centrifugal disk is electrically conductive, as taught by Otsuki, for the purpose of providing a conductive path that diverts harmful electrical currents away from the rolling elements and raceways.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5216. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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.
/PHILLIP A JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617