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 lines and numbers are not sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well defined, and black as required by 37 CFR 1.84(l). Specifically lines, such as lead lines and cross hatching lines appear pixelated and blurry, the figures also include pixelated grey lines which appear to be an attempt to define contour lines however they appear as grey pixelation in the figures.
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 third and fourth thicknesses being different, claim 7, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Claim 7 is covering a different embodiment of the device that has not been illustrated, in the drawings the third and fourth thickness are only shown as being the same.
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
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 3, - -and- - should be inserted after “thickness”.
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 2-9 and 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 2, it is unclear how radial wall and the skirt have a first and second thickness in reference to the part as a whole as recited in claim 1 but then the wall and skirt have portions of different thickness that are actually portions of the hook section as recited in claim 1. The confusion in the claim is that claim 1 is defining the thicknesses in reference to the components as a whole when in actuality the components are not homogenous and also not independent and distinct as the drafting of claim 1 suggests. The radial wall and the skirt are independent and distinct from each other, however the hook section is not, the hook section is made from regions of the wall and skirt, these regions having different thicknesses, this is what the claims need to make clear before defining specific thicknesses at different portions.
Claims 4 and 5 have a similar inconsistency with claim 2 above. Claim 4 is introducing another section that appears as an independent and distinct element like how the hook section is first introduced when in actuality the “reinforcement section” is yet another subcomponent/feature of the radial wall and skirt, this needs to be made clear in claim 4. Claim 5 then goes on and defines additional thickness in the same manner as claim 2 does, however this is indefinite for the same reason as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above. Claims 4 and 5 should be amended in a similar manner to define that the reinforcement section is made of a portion of the radial wall and skirt having a different thickness then the rest of the subregions of the wall and skirt.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Corbett, WO2011/076622.
Regarding claim 1, Corbett discloses an upper bearing cap (18) for a suspension thrust bearing device, comprising: a radial wall (at 18b) having an upper surface configured to face a retainer seat (top in figure 1) and an opposite lower surface (bottom that contacts 24) configured to contact a rolling-element bearing (22), an axial outer annular skirt (18d) extending axially downwards from a radial outer edge of the radial wall and having an axial outer surface (side facing away from the bearing element) and an opposite axially inner surface (side facing toward the bearing element), and at least one hook section (18e) comprising at least one hook (see page 4, lines 31-33, which discloses that the hook section can be a continuous feature (one hook around the assembly) or a discontinuous feature (a plurality of individual hooks)) configured to interact with a further component (36) of the suspension thrust bearing device, wherein a radially outer portion of the radial wall (portion between 18b and 18d) has a first thickness and the axial outer annular skirt has a second thickness (both have thickness, for the radial wall the thickness is measured in the axial direction and for the axial skirt the thickness is measured in the radial direction, in this case both thicknesses are the same which is not excluded by the claim), and wherein at least a portion of the at least one hook section has a third thickness (thickness of 18e in the radial direction) greater than the first thickness and greater than the second thickness.
Regarding claim 10, Corbett discloses a suspension thrust bearing device (see figure 1), comprising: a lower support cap (36), an upper bearing cap (18) according to claim 1, and at least one bearing (22) arranged between the lower support cap (36) and the upper bearing cap (18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, and dependent claims 3-9 and 11, 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.
Claim 2, assuming that the claims are amended to correctly define the hook section as made of a portion of both the radial wall and the skirt and that the wall and skirt have regions of different thicknesses the features set forth in the combination are not found in the prior art of record.
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