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
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, in light of the amendment defining the location of the pretensioning device the claim is limited to the configuration where the outer ring moves, thus the alternative of applying the force to the inner ring in the second to last clause of the claim is not necessary and should be removed.
Claim 14 similarly requires direct contact between the pretensioning device and the outer ring in the last clause of the claim and thus the alternative of the inner ring in the second to last clause of the claim is excluded and thus can be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to include that the pretensioning device is located between the two roller bearings, this configuration only applies to arrangements where the pretensioning device is arranged to move the outer ring of the first bearing. However, claims 4, 12 and 13 all include the alternative option of the pretensioning device moving (clm 4), directly acting on (clm 12) or a transfer element between the inner ring and the pretension/adjusting device (clm 13). This combination of the pretensioning element being between the bearings while also interacting with or moving the inner ring is not supported by the original disclosure. Either these dependent claims need to have the alternative of the inner ring removed or the claim dependencies, including any intervening claims, can be changed to depend from claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 14-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, amended to include the previous allowable subject matter of claim 6, the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious a pretensioning device that provides an uneven distribution of the force to the bearing assembly that is located between said first roller bearing and said second roller bearing with respect to said rotational axis. When using a pretensioning device between adjacent bearings the configuration is more commonly a hydraulic configuration with an annular chamber that provides an even distribution of force rather than a configuration with individual pressing elements, thus not providing an uneven force like in the instant application.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not teach or render obvious the combination that includes several or multiple single adjustment elements that are all the same structure but unevenly distributed around the assembly.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record does not teach or render obvious a configuration with an annular piston ring that has a variable radial dimension around the assembly (see figure 6 of the instant application), the variable dimension causing different contact areas and thus a different force at different annular locations around the assembly.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/comments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any ground of rejection applied in the prior rejection of record.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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