DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al., US 2016/0025592 A1 (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a bearing test apparatus comprising:
a chamber (150, Fig. 2);
a rotatable part of which a portion is inserted into the chamber (111, Fig. 2);
a fixed part configured to support the rotatable part (140, Fig. 2);
a support bearing inserted between the rotatable part and the fixed part to support rotation of the rotatable part (50, Fig. 2);
a cooling fluid supply device configured to supply a cooling fluid into the chamber (121, Fig. 2); and
a heating device connected to the support bearing, wherein the heating device is configured to heat the support bearing (“The oil is supplied through an oil pump (not shown), cooled by a cooler, and then supplied into the rotary shaft housing 140 again,” ¶ 0063; the oil is part of the heating device, which oil is heated by another part of the heating device, which increases the temperature of the oil, requiring the oil to be cooled in a cooler).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lee also teaches wherein the heating device comprises: a heating body having a ring shape (oil surrounds the nut 132, for example, taking on a ring shape, Fig. 2); and
a connection line connected to the heating body to transmit power (lines 134 transmit heat power to the oil, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lee also teaches wherein the heating device is coupled below the support bearing (oil outlet 142 leads to portion of heating device coupled below support bearing 50, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lee also teaches a power supply device configured to supply power to the heating device (motor 304 powered by power supply device, and provides the rotary motion that generates the friction that helps enable the heating device to generate heat, Figs. 1 and 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 12-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Haylock et al., US 20240093692 A1 (hereinafter Haylock).
Regarding claim 6:
Lee teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lee also teaches a rotation motor connected to the rotatable part (304, Fig. 1).
Lee does not teach wherein a torquemeter is not provided between the rotation motor and the rotatable part.
Haylock teaches that one can measure torque of a rotating system by measuring the current of a motor that rotates the system (“one operational characteristic of a pump motor which could help to recognise variation in shaft torque is that of current supplied to a pump motor, given a target of maintaining a rotational speed. Varying bearing rolling friction, as might be associated with bearing wear, will cause fluctuations in current, as it is adjusted to compensate for “sticking”,” ¶ 0048).
It has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
In this instance, one having ordinary skill in the art could easily replace the torquemeter of Lee with the simple motor current measuring scheme of Haylock to determine the torque on the motor 304, thereby predictably providing a simple means for measuring torque, without otherwise altering the operation of the bearing test rig of Lee.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to replace the torquemeter by measuring motor current to determine torque, as taught by Lee, thereby predictably providing a simple means for measuring torque, resulting in wherein a torquemeter is not provided between the rotation motor and the rotatable part.
Regarding claim 12:
Lee teaches a bearing test method comprising:
inserting a test bearing into a test bearing apparatus (test bearing 40, Fig. 2);
rotating a rotatable part of the bearing test apparatus by using a rotation motor and monitoring the rotation motor, (rotatable part 111, Fig. 2; motor 304, Fig. 1);
wherein the bearing test apparatus comprises: a chamber configured to provide a test space (150, Fig. 2);
the rotatable part of which at least a portion is inserted into the chamber (portion of 111 inside chamber 150, Fig. 2);
a fixed part configured to support the rotatable part (140, Fig. 2);
a cooling fluid supply device configured to supply a cooling fluid into the chamber (121, Fig. 2); and
the rotation motor connected to the rotatable part to provide rotational force to the rotatable part (304, Fig. 1).
Lee does not teach wherein the monitoring of the rotation motor comprises monitoring a current value input to the rotation motor.
Haylock teaches that one can measure torque of a rotating system by measuring the current of a motor that rotates the system (“one operational characteristic of a pump motor which could help to recognise variation in shaft torque is that of current supplied to a pump motor, given a target of maintaining a rotational speed. Varying bearing rolling friction, as might be associated with bearing wear, will cause fluctuations in current, as it is adjusted to compensate for “sticking”,” ¶ 0048).
It has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
In this instance, one having ordinary skill in the art could easily replace the torquemeter of Lee with the simple motor current measuring scheme of Haylock to determine the torque on the motor 304, thereby predictably providing a simple means for measuring torque, without otherwise altering the operation of the bearing test rig of Lee.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to replace the torquemeter by measuring motor current to determine torque, as taught by Lee, thereby predictably providing a simple means for measuring torque, resulting in wherein a torquemeter is not provided between the rotation motor and the rotatable part.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lee and Haylock teaches the invention of claim 12, as set forth in the rejection of claim 12 above. The combination of Lee and Haylock also teaches wherein the inserting of the test bearing into the bearing test apparatus comprises inserting the test bearing into the chamber (Lee: bearing 40 inserted into chamber 150, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lee and Haylock teaches the invention of claim 13, as set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above. The combination of Lee and Haylock also teaches wherein the inserting of the test bearing into the bearing test apparatus further comprises coupling an inner ring of the test bearing to the rotatable part (Lee: inner ring 42 coupled to 150, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lee and Haylock teaches the invention of claim 12, as set forth in the rejection of claim 12 above. The combination of Lee and Haylock also teaches during the rotation of the rotatable part, supplying the cooling fluid into the test space by using the cooling fluid supply device (Lee: cooling fluid supplied by 121 into chamber 150, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lee and Haylock teaches the invention of claim 16, as set forth in the rejection of claim 16 above. The combination of Lee and Haylock also teaches wherein the cooling fluid comprises liquid nitrogen (N2) (Lee: “In this embodiment, the cryogenic fluid is for example liquid nitrogen (LN.sub.2),” ¶ 0046).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lee and Haylock teaches the invention of claim 12, as set forth in the rejection of claim 12 above. The combination of Lee and Haylock also teaches wherein a torquemeter is not provided between the rotation motor and the rotatable part (as set forth in the rejection of claim 18, motor current is measured to determine torque in lieu of a torquemeter, as taught by Haylock).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lee and Haylock teaches the invention of claim 12, as set forth in the rejection of claim 12 above. The combination of Lee and Haylock also teaches wherein the bearing test apparatus comprises: a support bearing configured to support the rotation of the rotatable part between the rotatable part and the fixed part (Lee: 50, Fig. 2); and
a heating device connected to the support bearing, wherein the rotating of the rotatable part comprises heating the support bearing by using the heating device (Lee: “The oil is supplied through an oil pump (not shown), cooled by a cooler, and then supplied into the rotary shaft housing 140 again,” ¶ 0063; the oil is part of the heating device, which oil is heated by another part of the heating device, which increases the temperature of the oil, requiring the oil to be cooled in a cooler).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 7, the claim is deemed to be directed to a nonobvious difference over US 20160025592 A1. Claim 7 comprises a rotatable part of which at least a portion is inserted into the test space, wherein the rotatable part comprises a rotor coupled to the rotation shaft member, wherein the fixed part comprises a stator disposed below the rotor to face the rotor, and the sealing member is disposed between the rotor and the stator, wherein the sealing member is configured to provide a recess that is recessed from a bottom surface of the sealing member in the first direction, so as to optimize the cryogenic testing of a bearing.
Claims 5, 15, and 20 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 5, the claim is deemed to be directed to a nonobvious difference over US 20160025592 A1. Claim 5 comprises wherein the rotatable part comprises a rotor coupled to the rotation shaft member, wherein the fixed part comprises a stator disposed below the rotor to face the rotor, and the sealing member is disposed between the rotor and the stator, wherein the sealing member is configured to provide a recess that is recessed upward from a bottom surface of the sealing member, so as to optimize the cryogenic testing of a bearing.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is deemed to be directed to a nonobvious difference over US 20160025592 A1. Claim 15 comprises wherein, when the current value detected by the monitoring of the current value input to the rotation motor is greater than or equal to a threshold value, the rotation of the rotatable part is stopped, so as to optimize the cryogenic testing of a bearing.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is deemed to be directed to a nonobvious difference over US 20160025592 A1. Claim 20 comprises wherein the rotatable part comprises a rotor coupled to the rotation shaft member, wherein the fixed part comprises a stator disposed below the rotor to face the rotor, and the sealing member is disposed between the rotor and the stator, wherein the sealing member is configured to provide a recess that is recessed upward from a bottom surface of the sealing member, so as to optimize the cryogenic testing of a bearing.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180136081 A1 discloses a bearing test apparatus for testing a bearing (hereinafter, referred to as a “test bearing”) has a chamber, a bearing cap disposed in the chamber and coupled to an outer wheel of the test bearing, a driving shaft connected to an inner wheel of the test bearing to rotate the inner wheel, an extension arm extending in a radial direction of the bearing cap from the bearing cap to expose one end thereof out of the chamber, and a measurement arm configured to make a contact with one end of the extension arm and configured to be rotatable by the extension arm, wherein an exclusive torque of the test bearing is obtained by measuring a force applied to the measurement arm by the extension arm when a rotation force is applied to the bearing cap by the outer wheel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO T HINZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2864. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-2.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on (571)272-2149. 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.
/LEO T HINZE/
Patent Examiner
AU 2853
30 September 2026
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
