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). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “coefficient of friction between the rolling bodies and the second plastic material” of claim 6 since for a coefficient of friction to exist, there must be contact between the two elements; “the flange rests on the slide ring of the outer bearing rings” of claim 18; and “a device comprising an outer component and an inner component”, “a bicycle”, “a gear part”, “a bicycle transmission”, “a wheel axle”, “a bottom bracket axle” and “a further gear part” of claim 22 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification should have headings for each section of the specification. See MPEP § 608.01(a) and 37 C.F.R. 1.77(c).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “them”. Claims 16, 20 and 21 recite “its”. The claims should avoid the use of pronouns for clarity.
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.
Claims 1-22 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 1: lines 3-4 recite “an inner ring and an outer ring which each form a guide portion of a guide”. It is unclear as written if the inner ring and the outer ring both have a guide portion and a guide, or if the inner ring and the outer ring each have a guide portion and together, they form a single guide.
Claim 1: line 17 and claim 13 recite “in each case”. As written, it is unclear what each case is intended to be. Applicant should avoid such language and specifically recite the cases.
Claim 3 recites “the rolling bodies contact the slide ring with a contact surface”. Claim 1 previously recited “rolling bodies…rest on the two guide portions”. It is unclear if the contact surface is the same as the guide portion or if they are two separate elements/features.
Claim 3 recites “the rolling bodies contact the slide ring with a contact surface at least five times as large as that of the stabilizing ring, where the stabilizing ring is spaced apart from the rolling bodies.” It is unclear if the limitation requires a contact surface of the stabilizing ring (“as that of the stabilizing ring”). It is further unclear how both limitation “the rolling bodies contact the slide ring with a contact surface at least five times as large as that of the stabilizing ring” and “the stabilizing ring is spaced apart from the rolling bodies” can both exist. If the rolling bodies contact the slide ring with a contact surface at least five times as large as that of the stabilizing ring, then there must be some contact between the stabilizing ring and the rolling bodies. Therefore, the rolling bodies cannot also be spaced apart from the stabilizing ring.
Claim 5 recites “the first plastic material is a sliding material”. It is unclear what limitation, if any, “a sliding material” imparts. It is unclear which materials would be considered “sliding materials” and which would not. Although the specification attempts to further define the term “sliding material” in paragraph [0008], the specification further compounds the issue by stating: “sliding materials are well known as plastics materials with good sliding properties. A tribological polymer is particularly preferred as a sliding material, i.e., a polymer plastic that is tribologically optimised, i.e., has good friction and/or lubrication properties.” No particular criteria have been suggested for what would be considered “good friction and/or lubrication”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know what materials fall in this category.
Claim 6 recites “a coefficient of friction between the rolling bodies and the first plastics material is lower than a coefficient of friction between the rolling bodies and the second plastics material, and/or the first plastics material contains a higher proportion of lubricants than the second plastics material.” Since there is no contact between the stabilizing ring and the rolling bodies, it is unclear how there can be a coefficient of friction between the stabilizing ring and the rolling bodies. Applicant should avoid theoretical claim limitations regarding unclaimed features, such as friction between parts that do not contact. Furthermore, the limitation “a higher proportion of lubricants” contradicts the limitation of “without lubricant” of claim 1: line 16.
Claim 7 recites “a sliding material”. It is unclear what limitation, if any, “a sliding material” imparts. It is unclear which materials would be considered “sliding materials” and which would not. Although the specification attempts to further define the term “sliding material” in paragraph [0008], the specification further compounds the issue by stating: “sliding materials are well known as plastics materials with good sliding properties. A tribological polymer is particularly preferred as a sliding material, i.e., a polymer plastic that is tribologically optimised, i.e., has good friction and/or lubrication properties.” No particular criterion has been suggested for what would be considered “good friction and/or lubrication”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know what materials fall in this category.
Claim 12 recites “into the radial receptacle assigned to them”. It is unclear who or what “assigns” the receptacles. Applicant should also avoid using pronouns to avoid confusion.
Claim 13 recites “the same angular range”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what defines or bounds the range. Perhaps Applicant intended --a projection of the first group at least partially overlaps a same angular position about the axis as a projection of the second group--.
Claim 14 recites “the slide ring has a greater length of extent in the radial direction averaged over a circumferential course around the axis than the stabilising ring.” It is unclear what is intended by the limitation. Is Applicant claiming that the volume of the sliding ring is greater than the volume of the stabilizing ring? It is further unclear what sort of average is used, i.e., a weighted average, standard average? How would such an average be calculated?
Claim 17 recites “the slide ring and the stabilising ring are arranged pressed together in a radial interference fit and/or are produced by injection moulding, wherein the slide ring and the stabilising ring are produced by multi-component injection moulding and/or one of the slide ring and the stabilising ring is moulded onto the other of the slide ring and the stabilising ring.” It is unclear how “the slide ring and the stabilising ring are produced by multi-component injection moulding” is different from “one of the slide ring and the stabilising ring is moulded onto the other of the slide ring and the stabilising ring”. Furthermore, it is unclear how both “the slide ring and the stabilising ring are arranged pressed together in a radial interference fit” and either of “the slide ring and the stabilising ring are produced by multi-component injection moulding and/or one of the slide ring and the stabilising ring is moulded onto the other of the slide ring and the stabilising ring” can both be possible. Put another way, how can an element that is moulded onto another element also be “pressed together in a radial interference fit”?
Claim 19 recites “the flange is formed by the slide ring”. Claim 18 previously recited “the flange is formed by the stabilizing ring”. It is unclear how the flange can be formed by both the slide ring and the stabilizing ring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2,4-5, 7-13,15-16 and 18-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The closest prior art reference is Ogura JP 57124123. Ogura discloses the raceways as being formed from metal which is harder than plastic, while in invention requires the inner surface to be formed of a plastic that is softer than the stabilizing plastic. Thus, Ogura teaches away from the invention. Furthermore, Hofgren U.S. 4,892,421 discloses a similar arrangement to the invention, however, Hofgren is silent as to the hardness of the first material and the second material. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined and modified the references to reach the claims without the use of impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN B WAITS whose telephone number is (571)270-3664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6-4 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 R 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.
/ALAN B WAITS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617