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 because the handwritten characters in figures 1 and 2 should be typed characters to be consistent with figures 3 and 4 and to satisfy PCT Rule 11.13(e) since some of the reference characters are not clearly legible, like 80 in figure 2.
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 radial shaft seal including two or more seal lips (claim 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Figure 2 with the solid shading does not provide any detail of the sealing arrangement itself, only figures 3 and 4 do this, neither of these figures show the radial shaft seal (the seal with the spring as stated in the specification) as having two or more sealing lips.
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, 5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2, “the seal lip” should be - -the at least one seal lip- -to match the phrasing used in amended claim 1.
Claim 5, line 2, “leap” should be - -lip- -.
Claim 8 calls for two radial shaft seals however either this recitation does not match the terminology used in the specification or is claiming an embodiment that is not shown. If the intent is for “radial shaft seal” to be limited to spring biased seals this embodiment would not be shown, if the intent is for this to reference element 38 this element is given a different name in the disclosure and thus the nomenclature in the disclosure and claims would be inconsistent. Either this embodiment needs to be illustrated or the terminology needs to be amended so that the claims and specification use the same terms.
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 1-6 and 8-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim states that the spacer is “adapted to” fit around the shaft and rotate with the shaft and it is unclear what is required to “adapt” the spacer in order to do this. What physical changes are necessary to “adapt” the part for this function? What adaptations has Applicant preformed? In this case it appears that Applicant is using the adapted to language to simply define the function of the device and not apply any special adaptations, to avoid this confusion and the possible suggestion of additional structural modification not explicitly disclosed or claimed it is suggested that this phrasing be avoided. In this case line 9 of the claim could read - -a spacer fitted around and rotatable with the shaft, the spacer- -.
Claim 1 also uses “adapted to” in a similar manner in the last line of the claim which is indefinite for the same reason. What structure is the claim requiring for the formations to be “adapted to” serve as oil flingers? In the case of the last line the phrase “and are adapted” can be deleted.
Claim 1 also defines the cover as being “reversibly secured” however it is unclear what this means and what structure this requires. How is the cover “reversibly secured”? Based on the shape shown in figure 2 it does not appear that the orientation of the cover 50 can be flipped and still align with the housing half 22 and the specification does not provide any clarification of the intended meaning of the term. By reversible does Applicant mean it can be on either side of the assembly? If so this is cap captured by claim 10 which defines two seal assemblies, however this isn’t really reversing something but rather changing a location. Does Applicant mean releasably secured in an attempt to define the use of bolts?
Claim 1 is also attempting to define a location of the surface formations, however this portion of the claim appears incomplete. The phrase “towards the interior of the housing” does not provide any specific reference point thus anywhere along the spacer the surface could be viewed in a direction toward the interior but this does not place the surface formations in any specific location. This recitation is missing a frame of reference or comparison point, the formations are on an interior side of the shaft seal, which should be incorporated into the claim for clarity and completeness. A recitation similar to claims 3 and 4 that properly define a reference point can be used.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the axial labyrinth seal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5, as amended, depends from claim 1 which does not include a labyrinth seal, claim 5 should depend from claim 4.
Claim 6 uses “adapted to” in the same manner as claim 1 and is indefinite for the same reasons. Claim 6 should be redrafted in a manner that avoids this phrase and other similar phrases.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 as amended presents previously indicated allowable subject matter from the PCT application in independent format. While the prior art of record shows pillow blocks with lip seals (DE 102019207156), covers and spacer elements with formation features (EP 1394429 and USP 6921211), the prior art of record does not disclose or render the claimed combination of sealing features absent impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Specifically the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the combination of the cover and spacer with a radial shaft seal positioned therebetween and the sealing surface of the spacer (surface that is contacted by the shaft seal) further including surface formations (a plurality) that serve as oil flingers (a surface that can direct lubricant radially outward under centrifugal force) that are on the housing side of the lip seal element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES PILKINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-5052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7-3.
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.
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617