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 .
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 1-12 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 1, the limitation “inclined with respect to an axial direction in a radial directional view” is unclear as “a radial directional view” is not an understood view. Is the Applicant referencing a cross sectional through perpendicular to the longitudinal direction or a cross sectional view parallel to the radial direction or is this some other view?
In claim 2, the limitation “that is parallel to a surface on a second member side of the bearing plate piece adjacent to the second member” is unclear through the use of “ands” and commas throughout the claim as it creates uncertainty of what “that” is parallel to. Is “that” is referencing the inclined surface or the other surface? What is “that” modifying? Assuming “that” is referencing the other surface, the phrasing should be changed to “the second member has an inclined surface facing the inclined surface of the first member, a fixed surface is provided on a side opposite to the inclined surface of the second member in the circumferential direction, and the fixed surface is parallel to a fixed surface on a second member side of the bearing plate piece adjacent to the second member” or something similar to be clear.
In claim 6, the limitation “the second member is provided for each row of the bearing plate pieces” is indefinite because claim 5 brings in a plurality of the second members. Is the applicant attempting to reference a single one of the plurality or should the claim reference “the plurality”?
In claim 11, the limitation “the fixing device has a circumferential width that is changeable by moving the second member relative to the first member in the axial direction” is indefinite because claim 5 brings in a plurality of the second members. Is the applicant attempting to reference a single one of the plurality or should the claim reference “the plurality”?
In claim 12, the limitation “the fixing device has a circumferential width that is changeable by moving the second member relative to the first member in the axial direction” is indefinite because claim 5, which claim 6 is depended on, brings in a plurality of the second members. Is the applicant attempting to reference a single one of the plurality or should the claim reference “the plurality”?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 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: the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the combination set forth in claim 1.
In particular, as best understood, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious a bearing comprising “the fixing device includes a first member having an inclined surface that is inclined with respect to an axial direction in a radial directional view, and a second member configured for moving along the inclined surface of the first member and pressing the bearing plate pieces” in combination with the other claim limitations. The examiner is assuming the “an axial direction view in a radial directional view” is similar to the view when looking straight at fig. 2.
The closest prior art Kawabata, JP 2014092178 A, discloses a slide bearing structure with multiple bearing pieces but they do not disclose the limitation above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boyd (US 2372054 A) discloses a bearing assembly but does not disclose the necessary limitations.
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
Prosecution Insights