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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The disclosure uses English units in paragraphs 0029, these need to be converted to S.I. units with the English units following, see MPEP 608.01 IV.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 4 should be indented to align with the start of line 2.
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 1-20 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, based on the claim construction it is unclear how many of the first and second lateral portions are being positively set forth. The phrase “first and second lateral portions” can be read multiple ways, first to include one of each lateral portion (two in total), or first portions and second portions (4 or more). The latter would be consistent with the drawings and the disclosure however if this is the intended meaning of the phrase this would cause an issue with claim 2 which calls for “one or more”. Based on claim 2 it does not appear that the intent is to claim the four lateral portions illustrated but rather define a broader invention that only has two and therefore claim 1 should read - -a first lateral portion and a second lateral portion- - or - -a first and a second lateral portion- -. Whichever phrasing is used claims 2 and 3 should then be amended to match the phrasing.
Claim 4 defines a similar recitation to claim 1 with respect the phrase “first and second transverse portions” which is ultimately indefinite for the same reasons as stated above. However, the combination of claims 1 and 4 is further unclear as the claim combination reads as if there are distinct lateral portions and distinct transverse portions when in actuality the grid pattern formed by the two flexible portions defines four regions which are each lateral portion and transverse portion. Because the regions ultimately double as both a lateral portion and transverse portion the claim construction does not match this and appears to be defining distinct zones. The claim needs to be rephrased to either define that the second flexible portion subdivides the lateral portions or, if Applicant elects to take the allowable subject matter, the combination of claims 1 and 4 can be rephrased to define that the flexible portions form a grid or divide the shoe surface into four quadrants (NOTE: this is not a suggestion of any particular language and any new language added to the claim must find support in the written description, language similar to claims 5 or 6 could be used).
Claims 9 and 20 includes the same recitation as claim 4 and is indefinite for the same reason.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear how many different “portions” are present in the shoe. Claim 1 defines the shoe as having first and second lateral portions on opposite sides the of flexible portion, however claim 13 states that there are stiffening portions demarcating the flexible. This reads as if there are separate lateral portions and separate stiffening portions, however based on the disclosure these parts appear to be one in the same, this conclusion is also supported by claim 2 which states each lateral portion comprises a stiffening portion. How many different and distinct portions are present in the device of claim 13? It is believed that the confusion is the result of claim 1 more broadly defining the invention and in doing so providing names for parts that are not commensurate with the actual shoe as defined in the disclosure and with respect to the actual fully defined product.
Regarding claim 14, the claim defines “one or more” positioning members and then states that this inhibits movement along “the lateral axis and transverse axis”. This phrasing allows for the combination of one positioning member that prevents movement along two axes however in light of the disclosure it is unclear how this is possible. The disclosure defines the positioning member as one of 290 or 292, each individually only prevents movement along the axis opposite to the one it is placed in (290 prevents movement along the Y axis when 290 is placed along the X axis). Only having one of these members, which is covered by the claim, only prevents movement in one direction not both as the claims suggests. In this case it is suggested that “one or more” be changed to - -two- -. A similar change would also be required in claims 15 and 16.
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) 1-3, 7-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henssler, USP 10,393,178.
Regarding claim 1, Henssler discloses a shoe (3’/16) for a hydrodynamic thrust bearing, the shoe being arranged relative to a transverse axis, a lateral axis, and a normal axis that intersect with and are perpendicular to each other (this recitation is not defining any particular orientation and is merely stating the coordinate system that is later used to define features relative to each other, all thrust shoes would have this same coordinate system and this can be applied in the same manner as in the instant application, the normal can run in and out of the page in figure 7 of Henssler, the transverse axis can be the vertical axis and the lateral axis can be the horizontal, this would match the coordinate system as applied in figure 2 of the instant application), the shoe comprising: a bearing surface (18) for supporting an axial load along the normal axis (load would be applied into the page in figure 7, this can be the normal as explained above); a first flexible portion (groove feature indicated by the dashed lines in figures 7 and 10) extending along the transverse axis (the vertical); and first and second lateral portions extending laterally from opposite sides of the first flexible portion (regions on the left and right of the dashed lines in figure 7), wherein the first flexible portion is more flexible about the transverse axis than the first and second lateral portions (the thinner material in the region of the dashed lines results in a region that is more flexible just like in the instant application where the flexible region is also a groove or recess that reduces the thickness of the shoe).
Regarding claim 2, Henssler discloses that the first and second lateral portions each comprise one or more stiffening portions (each portion is one continuous region), each stiffening portion having a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the first flexible portion (the groove that defines the flexible portion locally reduces the thickness of the shoe).
Regarding claim 3, Henssler discloses that the first flexible portion and first and second lateral portions define a channel that extends longitudinally along the transverse axis (the thinned portion and two thicker portions on either side of the thinned portion define a channel just like in the instant application).
Regarding claim 7, Henssler discloses a shoe assembly comprising: the shoe according to claim 1, and a shoe support (17) coupled to the shoe (fits in the groove indicated by the dashed lines) that supports the shoe and defines a convex engagement surface for pivotable engagement with another structure (the portion of 17 protruding from the shoe has a slight curvature as seen in figure 10, this forms a curved/pivotable engagement surface with another structure).
Regarding claim 8, Henssler discloses that the normal axis passes through the first flexible portion and a center of curvature of the convex engagement surface (the normal axis can be drawn from the center of the shoe, at this location the axis passes through both the first flexible portion or groove that holds the rib and through the center of the rib and thus through the center of the convex engagement surface).
Regarding claim 17, Henssler discloses a hydrodynamic thrust bearing comprising: a base ring (2’), and a plurality of the shoe assemblies circumferentially aligned about and supported by the base ring (see figure 6 showing a plurality of shoe assemblies around the base ring), wherein each shoe assembly of the plurality of shoe assemblies corresponds to the shoe assembly according to claim 7.
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) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henssler, USP 10,393,178, in view of Hill, USP 3,982,796.
Regarding claim 18, Henssler discloses a system comprising: the hydrodynamic thrust bearing according to claim 17; a rotatable body comprising a shaft (10) and a thrust collar (10’) fixed to the shaft, wherein the bearing surface of each shoe assembly of the plurality of shoe assemblies faces the thrust collar (see figure 11 showing the arrangement of the parts relative to each other to define a thrust bearing configuration).
While using a pressurizing fluid with tiltable segmented pad trust bearings is common practice, Henssler does not disclose that the bearing assembly is one that uses a layer of pressurized fluid provided on the bearing surface of each shoe assembly of the plurality of shoe assemblies.
Hill teaches a similar multi pad thrust bearing arrangement wherein a layer of pressurized fluid is provided on the bearing surface of the shoe members (see column 2, lines 50-68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to provide a working fluid to the bearing assembly of Henssler that during operation creates a pressurized layer between each shoe and the thrust collar, as taught by Hill, for the purpose of providing a working fluid between the surfaces that helps reduce friction by preventing direct contact of the surfaces with each other, this ultimately results in the bearing surfaces riding on a cushion of pressurized fluid preventing sliding wear between the parts.
Regarding claim 19, this claim, while defining a pressure profile, is not limiting the pad/shoe to any particular structure since the pressure profile is dependent on at least two variables, the speed of operation and pad shape. Since the speed of operation variable can change during operation the center of the pressure profile can change over time in a bearing, thus given proper conditions the resulting device of the combination can, for each shoe assembly of the plurality of shoe assemblies, have the layer of pressurized fluid provided on the bearing surface of the shoe assembly with a centroid of hydrodynamic pressure located such that the normal axis passes through the centroid of hydrodynamic pressure and the first flexible portion of the shoe assembly. In other words during operation the centroid of the pressure curve can shift given specific conditions this can include the centroid being aligned in a manner that the normal passes through it as well as the first flexible portion. See the citation of pertinent prior art below showing another reference that illustrates the pressure curve.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9, 14 and 20, and those 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.
Claim 10, and those claims depending therefrom (pending corrections for any issues under 35 USC 112(b) above), is 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 claims 4, 9 and 20, the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the claimed combination of a shoe that includes two flexible portions extending along distinct axes that are perpendicular to each other in order to define multiple regions that are less flexible then both the first and second flexible portion.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the claimed combination of a shoe including the features of claim 1 with a shoe support element, wherein the elements are coupled using one or more pins that allow for a pivotal coupling with the pins being located in holes in the shoe and shoe support.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the combination of the flexible portion and lateral portions set forth in claim 1 with a shoe support that has two positioning members that inhibit relative movement between the shoe and the shoe support along both the lateral axis and transverse axis in combination with the rest of the features set forth in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USP 4,657,411 illustrates and ideal pressure curve on a segmented bearing, this ideal pressure curve places the center of the curve over the center of the pad element.
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