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 black or sufficiently dark and dense as required by 37 CFR 1.84(l). Specifically the drawings are pixelated and gray and in figure 1 there appears to be a gray shading to the figure, regarding shading see 37 CFR 1.84(m).
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 0065 and 0067, the symbols f1, f0, fv and f2 should be changed to f1, f0, fv, and f2 so that the symbols match the symbols as shown in the equations (with the use of a subscript).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 13 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, lines 8 and 9, the phrase “arranged around and…between the inner ring and the outer ring” can be read as if stating that the layers are around the bearing elements but also between which could be confusing, this should be rephrase to read - -arranged at intervals around the intelligent bearing and between the inner ring and the outer ring- -.
Regarding claim 1, line 10, “cage protruding toward a side of the plurality” should read - -cage protruding towards the plurality- - to avoid any clarity issues with defining specific sides of elements or the bearing as a whole.
Claim 1, line 12, there appears to be a space between the e and the s in the last occurrence of “rotates” in the line, this spacing should be removed.
Regarding claim 1, lines 12 and 13, the commas in both lines should be deleted.
Claim 4, line 2, “is same” should be - -is the same- -.
Claim 9, line 3, “positioned” should be changed to - -attached- - or - -connected- - since the recitation is defining how the parts connect, via interference fit.
Regarding claim 10, lines 8 and 9, the phrase “arranged around and…between the inner ring and the outer ring” can be read as if stating that the layers are around the bearing elements but also between which could be confusing, this should be rephrase to read - -arranged at intervals around the intelligent bearing and between the inner ring and the outer ring- -.
Regarding claim 10, line 10, “cage protruding toward a side of the plurality” should read - -cage protruding towards the plurality- - to avoid any clarity issues with defining specific sides of elements or the bearing as a whole.
Claim 10, line 11, there appears to be a space between the e and the s in the last occurrence of “rotates” in the line, this spacing should be removed.
Regarding claim 10, lines 11 and 12, the commas in both lines should be deleted.
Claim 13, line 2, “is same” should be - -is the same- -.
Claim 18, line 3, “positioned” should be changed to - -attached- - or - -connected- - since the recitation is defining how the parts connect, via interference fit.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 4 and 13 are stating that the number of semiconductors of each time are the “same” or “different”, however what this is presenting is the only two possible alternatives that would be covered by claims 3 and 12. Stating the only two possible alternatives in the same claim does not further limit the previous claim as these would be the only possible alternatives covered by the parent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. If Applicant wishes to keep the recitations of this claim then the claim should be broken into two separate claims, one which would limit claim 3 to only having the same number and another claim that would limit claim 3 to only having a different number.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the claimed combination of a bearing that includes a detection component that comprises a conductive layer and a plurality of friction layers, the friction layers being arranged around the bearing assembly between the inner and outer rings and the conductive layer being attached to a protrusion of the cage that protrudes toward the friction layers, the features being arranged such that when the cage rotates the conductive layer rotates and generates a direct current by converting mechanical energy of the bearing movement into electrical energy when the conductive layer contacts and rubs against the friction layers. The closest prior art of record is CN 113175482 which includes a “friction layer” that interacts with the cage of the bearing, however the disclosure describes a system that relies on deflection of the friction layer to generate the current and thus there is no need for a conductive layer as required by the claim and adding such a layer to the reference would be hindsight reconstruction or a modification that would provide no benefit to the reference since the reference uses a different mode of current generation then that claimed in the instant application.
Regarding claim 10, the claim defines a method of detecting that ultimately uses the same intelligent bearing as defined by claim 1, since the bearing itself is new and novel the method that uses the bearing in its process is allowable for the same reason.
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
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