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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, line 4, “an interface element” should be - -the interface element- -.
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 7-11, 14-15 and 27 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 claims 7, 8 and 14, both claims reference “the displacer” however in light of the amendment to claim 1 it is not clear which of the two displacers now recited by the claim Applicant is referencing back to. Is this the displacer that comprises the linear actuator or the more generic displacer that is only configured to displace an interface element?
Claim 8 is further unclear since claim 1 has been amended to introduce a linear actuator it is unclear if the “one or more” recitation in claim 8 is adding an additional linear actuator for a base value of two in claim 8 or if the “one” is in reference to the one now added to claim 1. Similarly claim 9 defines “one or more interface elements” however claim 1 already includes an interface element with respect to one of the two displacers recited in the claim. How many interface elements does claim 9 require, just one or the one recited in claim 1 plus an additional “one or more”?
NOTE: upon addressing claims 8 and 9, dependent claims 10-11 should be reviewed in order to make sure they are consistent with any changes made to the parent claims.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites “a linear actuator”, however it is unclear if this is now a second actuator or if this is meant to be the same actuator as the one added to the claim via the amendment. How many actuators is Applicant attempting to positively claim?
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) 1-4, 6, 13-17, 26 and 31-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lucas, USP 9,534,629.
Regarding claim 1, Lucas discloses a bearing system comprising: a dual bearing comprising: an inner bearing (52, rolling element bearing); and an outer bearing (54, air bearing); and a bearing engagement system (at 68) configured to control a rotation of the inner bearing (engages with bearing to prevent relative movement), the bearing engagement system comprising: a displacer (79) configured to displace an interface element (74) to contact the dual bearing (contacts the bearing assembly at 76, see the top of column 5). NOTE: Alternative language in the claim not applicable to the rejection has been left out of the grounds of rejection, however see the remarks below.
Regarding claim 2, Lucas discloses that the dual bearing comprises a hybrid dual bearing wherein the inner bearing is different from the outer bearing (the roller bearing is different from the air bearing making the system a hybrid bearing).
Regarding claim 3, Lucas discloses the dual bearing is free of lubricant (54 is an air bearing or more specifically can be a foil bearing as indicated by 34, these are lubricant free bearings, the rolling bearing is also not disclosed as requiring lubricant).
Regarding claim 4, Lucas discloses that the dual bearing comprises a dual radial bearing wherein the outer bearing is concentric with and surrounds the inner bearing or a dual axial bearing wherein the outer bearing and the inner bearing are adjacent and side-by-side to each other (in all embodiments of Lucas the assembly is a dual radial bearing with the two types of bearings being concentric).
Regarding claim 6, Lucas discloses that the outer bearing comprises a gas bearing, and the inner bearing comprises a ball bearing, a roller bearing, a lubricated bearing, or any combination thereof (the outer bearing 54 is an air or gas bearing while the inner ring is a ball bearing, the balls being indicated by 62).
Regarding claim 13, Lucas discloses a vibration dampener (the bump foil element 34 in the air bearing side of the assembly acts as a vibration dampener when the rolling element bearing is in operation).
Regarding claim 14, Lucas discloses a controller configured to control the displacer, (see column 5, lines 43-65 disclosing the use of controller).
Regarding claim 15, Lucas discloses that the controller is configured to stop the rotation of the inner bearing at a predetermined angular position (the system is a rotary system that locks the ball bearing or inner bearing based on operating conditions, regardless of when this occurs the inner bearing is locked at a particular point in time during its rotation, this position is predetermined based on the controller and would relate to an angular position, the claim uses the phrasing “configured to” which is defining the device based on its function rather than what it is, any controller that locks a bearing after a particular amount of rotation or after reaching a particular speed would perform this function).
Regarding claim 16, Lucas discloses a method of controlling a rotation of an inner bearing relative to an outer bearing in a dual bearing comprising: controlling an interaction between the inner bearing and at least one interface element by: laterally displacing an interface element (74) via a displacer (79), to control contact between the interface element and the dual bearing.
Regarding claim 17, Lucas discloses controlling the interaction between the inner bearing and the interface element by laterally displacing the inner bearing, an interface element, or both (74 is laterally displaced).
Regarding claim 26, Lucas discloses a system comprising: a rotor (18); a stator (20); a bearing comprising: an inner bearing (52); and an outer bearing (54), the outer bearing connected to the stator (see figure 2 showing the state of the air bearing when it is not functioning as the load support bearing); and a bearing engagement system (68) configured to control a rotation of the inner bearing, the bearing engagement system comprising: a displacer (79) configured to displace an interface element (74, see column 5 and the explanation in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 31, Lucas discloses that the outer bearing comprises a gas bearing, and the inner bearing comprises a ball bearing, a roller bearing, a lubricated bearing, or any combination thereof (the outer bearing 54 is an air or gas bearing while the inner ring is a ball bearing, the balls being indicated by 62).
Regarding claim 32, Lucas discloses that the bearing comprises a radial bearing or an axial bearing (Lucas illustrates a radial bearing assembly).
Regarding claim 33, Lucas discloses that the bearing comprises a hybrid bearing where the inner bearing is different from the outer bearing (the inner bearing is a rolling element bearing and the outer bearing is an air bearing).
Regarding claim 34, Lucas discloses that the bearing system is configured such that the outer bearing is engaged with the stator when the inner bearing rotates (when the air bearing is not in operation the top foil engages with 26 as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 35, Lucas discloses a vibration dampener (the bump foil element 34 in the air bearing side of the assembly acts as a vibration dampener when the rolling element bearing is in operation).
Regarding claim 36, Lucas discloses a controller configured to control the displacer, the electromagnet, or both (see column 5, lines 43-65 disclosing the use of controller).
Regarding claim 37, Lucas discloses the al bearing is lubricant-free lubricant (54 is an air bearing or more specifically can be a foil bearing as indicated by 34, these are lubricant free bearings, the rolling bearing is also not disclosed as requiring lubricant).
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) 5 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas, USP 9,534,629.
Regarding claims 5 and 30, Lucas discloses the reversed configuration as set forth in claims 6 and 31 and thus does not disclose that the inner bearing comprises a gas bearing, and the outer bearing comprises a ball bearing, a roller bearing, a lubricated bearing, or any combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to reverse the configuration and make the inner element the gas bearing and the outer element the rolling element bearing in the device of Lucas, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore reversing which bearing is which does not change the principle of operation as the air/foil bearing would still carry the load when lift off speed is achieved, however switching the air foil bearing to be the inner ring allows for the air foil bearing to support less of a mass and thus improving bearing performance and reducing imbalance that might result in revolving the rolling element bearing as a whole when the air foil bearing is the outer bearing element as the rolling element bearing in the reversed configuration would be secured to the stator side and thus not moving when the air bearing is operational.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 5, 2026, while generally persuasive, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regards to the allowability of the independent claims. While it was agreed during the previous interview that the document to Lucas includes differences relative to what Applicant is seeking protection for the amendment to the claim does not limit the claim to these distinctions. Specifically by having multiple alternatives in the claim and only some of the alternatives capturing more specific details of the invention the claim remains broader that what is actually disclosed in the instant application. The first alternative of the claim now reads as a separate displacer with a linear actuator, however the second alternative of the claim is a displacer configured to displace an interface element to contact the bearing. This second displacer option is not structurally limited in any manner and thus the Lucas document anticipates this alternative of the claim. Applicant agrees that the actuator 84 does not displace the disk 74 but rather merely pushes it against the bearing system, however the act of pushing is displacing, the amount of movement may be minute but it must move in order to transition between the engaged braking state and the free spinning state of the bearing. Applicant further argues that the disclosure of Lucas only bends the element 74, however this is not consistent with the description of Lucas in column 5 which states when 79 is energized it applies a pressure that pushes 74 against both 72 and 76, if the part was “bent” as Applicant argues pressure would not be applied via the actuation of 79 to both elements. If the part was bent one of 72 and 76 would always be in contact with 74 and the actuator would deflect the non-contact end of 74 into engagement with the other of 72 and 76 but this is not what Lucas states is happening. If it moves to contact both elements then it does not bend in the manner applicant is arguing, however its noted bending a part is a form of displacing, it displaces a part of the part relative to the rest of the part, the claim does not distinguish the displacing in the 2nd alternative of the claim like the recitation of the linear actuator has done in the first alternative.
Defining both “displacers” of the claim as having a linear actuator would distinguish the claim and be more consistent with what Applicant is attempting to argue.
Allowable Subject Matter
However, as a result of the current amendment and the remarks the following claims have been found to contain allowable subject matter:
Claims 7, 8 (and claims depending therefrom) 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.
Claims 12, 18, 20, 22, 27, 28 and 29 (and claims depending therefrom) 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the claim is defining a combination with two distinct engagement systems being present, Lucas only discloses one that reads upon claim 1 and absent hindsight reconstruction there is no reason to add a redundant but distinct system to Lucas.
Claims 8, 27 and 28 are limiting the claim to using linear actuators, a linear actuator being a device that converts rotary motion (of a motor or drive) to linear motion (along a track or other like element, see Remarks by applicant on 2/11/26). The prior art of record does not disclose a device that uses linear actuators.
Regarding claims 12, 20 and 29, the prior art of record does not disclose that the system includes/is limited to the third option of using an electromagnet that generates a magnetic torque to slow/brake the inner bearing.
Regarding claims 18 and 22, the prior art of record does not disclose a method that includes the controlling or actuating the structural elements in the manner recited by these claims.
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
Prosecution Insights