DETAILED ACTION
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 . 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 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.
Specification
The abstract is objected to for including a phrase which can be implied. See “is provided” in line 2. See MPEP 608.01(b). The Examiner notes simply removing this phrase and ending the first sentence with “outer portion” would place the abstract in proper form and overcome the objection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 15 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 16 is 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. The limitations set forth in claim 16 can be found in claim 14, lines 8-10. 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,950,964 (Alexeeva).
Regarding claim 1, Alexeeva discloses a monolithic pivot bearing (see Figures 6 and 7) comprising:
an outer cylindrical portion (54) having an inner surface where a limiter (57) having a first width extends from the outer cylindrical portion inner surface (see Figure 7);
an inner portion (53) disposed within the outer cylindrical portion and rotatable with respect to the outer cylindrical portion (see Figure 7 and column 7, line 22, through column 8, line 18), the inner portion defining:
a limiter recess (formed between respective portions 56 in Figure 7) extending from a top surface of the inner portion towards a center of the inner portion (see Figure 7), wherein the limiter recess has a second width greater than the first width and the limiter recess is configured to receive the limiter where the first width and the second width define a travel range of the monolithic pivot bearing (see Figure 7); and
a plurality of flexure blade recesses (formed between 53 and 54, as shown in Figure 7) extending from the inner portion top surface towards the inner portion center; and
a plurality of flexure blades (55) that each:
have a serpentine configuration (see Figure 7);
extend from the outer cylindrical portion inner surface and within the plurality of flexure blade recesses (see Figure 7); and
operatively couple the outer cylindrical portion with the inner portion at an inner surface of the inner portion (see Figure 7), wherein the plurality of flexure blades flex into a first flexure blade position (i.e. clockwise in Figure 7, where the flexure blades would experience compression) when one of the inner portion and the outer cylindrical portion rotates in a first direction relative to the other of the inner portion and the outer cylindrical portion and wherein the plurality of flexure blades flex into a second flexure blade position (i.e. counterclockwise in Figure 7, where the flexure blades would experience extension) when one of the inner portion and the outer cylindrical portion rotates in a second direction relative to the other of the inner portion and the outer cylindrical portion that is opposite to the first direction (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 2, Alexeeva discloses a coupling member (e.g. 61) extending from the inner portion center wherein the coupling member is configured to couple an article with the inner portion (53) such that the article rotates in the first direction relative to the outer cylindrical portion (54) via the inner portion and the article rotates in the second direction relative to the outer cylindrical portion via the inner portion (see Figure 6).
Regarding claim 3, Alexeeva discloses the plurality of flexure blades (55) includes three flexure blades equally spaced apart in a radial direction about the inner portion center (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 8, Alexeeva discloses a monolithic pivot bearing (see Figures 6 and 7) comprising:
an outer cylindrical portion (54);
an inner portion (53) disposed within the outer cylindrical portion and rotatable with respect to the outer cylindrical portion (see Figure 7 and column 7, line 22, through column 8, line 18), the inner portion defining a plurality of flexure blade recesses (formed between 53 and 54, as shown in Figure 7) extending from a top surface of the inner portion towards a center of the inner portion (see Figure 7); and
a plurality of flexure blades (55) that each:
have a serpentine configuration (see Figure 7);
extend from and inner surface of the outer cylindrical portion and within the plurality of flexure blade recesses (see Figure 7); and
operatively couple the outer cylindrical portion with the inner portion at an inner surface of the inner portion (see Figure 7), wherein the plurality of flexure blades flex into a first flexure blade position (i.e. clockwise in Figure 7, where the flexure blades would experience compression) when one of the inner portion and the outer cylindrical portion rotates in a first direction relative to the other of the inner portion and the outer cylindrical portion and wherein the plurality of flexure blades flex into a second flexure blade position (i.e. counterclockwise in Figure 7, where the flexure blades would experience extension) when one of the inner portion and the outer cylindrical portion rotates in a second direction relative to the other of the inner portion and the outer cylindrical portion that is opposite to the first direction (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 9, Alexeeva discloses an inner surface where a limiter (57) having a first width extending from an inner surface of the outer cylindrical portion inner (see Figure 7); and
a limiter recess (formed between respective portions 56 in Figure 7) extending from the inner portion top surface towards the inner portion center, wherein the limiter recess has a second width greater than the first width and the limiter recess is configured to receive the limiter where the first width and the second width define a travel range of the monolithic pivot bearing (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 10, Alexeeva discloses the plurality of flexure blades (55) includes three flexure blades equally spaced apart in a radial direction about the inner portion center (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 14, Alexeeva discloses a monolithic pivot bearing (see Figures 6 and 7) comprising:
an outer cylindrical portion (54);
an inner portion (53) disposed within the outer cylindrical portion and rotatable with respect to the outer cylindrical portion (see Figure 7 and column 7, line 22, through column 8, line 18), the inner portion defining a plurality of flexure blade recesses (formed between 53 and 54, as shown in Figure 7) extending from a top surface of the inner portion towards a center of the inner portion (see Figure 7); and
a plurality of flexure blades (55) that each:
have a serpentine configuration (see Figure 7);
extend from the outer cylindrical portion inner surface and within the plurality of flexure blade recesses that; and operatively couple the outer cylindrical portion with the inner portion at an inner surface of the inner portion (see Figure 7), wherein the plurality of flexure blades flex into a first flexure blade position (i.e. clockwise in Figure 7, where the flexure blades would experience compression) when one of the inner portion and the outer cylindrical portion rotates in a first direction relative to the other of the inner portion and the outer cylindrical portion and wherein the plurality of flexure blades flex into a second flexure blade position (i.e. counterclockwise in Figure 7, where the flexure blades would experience extension) when one of the inner portion and the outer cylindrical portion rotates in a second direction relative to the other of the inner portion and the outer cylindrical portion that is opposite to the first direction (see Figure 7).
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Alexeeva discloses an inner surface where a limiter (57) having a first width extending from an inner surface of the outer cylindrical portion inner; (see Figure 7) and
a limiter recess (formed between respective portions 56 in Figure 7) extending from the inner portion top surface towards the inner portion center, wherein the limiter recess has a second width greater than the first width and the limiter recess is configured to receive the limiter where the first width and the second width define a travel range of the monolithic pivot bearing (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 16, Alexeeva discloses each of the plurality of flexure blades (55) have a serpentine configuration and extend from and inner surface of the outer cylindrical portion (54) and within the plurality of flexure blade recesses (formed between 53 and 54, as shown in Figure 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 11-13, 18, and 19 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.
Alexeeva discloses the monolithic pivot bearing of claims 1, 8, and 14, wherein each of the plurality of flexure blades comprises:
a first blade (see annotated Figure 1 below) extending from the outer cylindrical portion (54) inner surface (see Figure 7);
a second blade (see annotated Figure 1 below) extending from the first blade in a third flexure blade position (see Figure 7); and
a third blade (see annotated Figure 1 below) extending from the second blade in the third flexure blade position, wherein the third blade extends to the inner portion (53) inner surface (see Figure 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
267
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 7 of Alexeeva
Alexeeva fails to disclose the second blade extending perpendicularly from the first blade, and the third blade extending perpendicularly from the second blade and parallel to the first blade in the third flexure blade position and parallel to the first blade in the third flexure blade position, wherein the third blade extends to the inner portion inner surface such that the second blade is perpendicular relative to the first blade and the third blade. Instead, Alexeeva discloses the second blade being tangentially disposed relative to the first and third blades (see Figure 7).
The prior art fails to fairly show or suggest a modification to Alexeeva such that the second blade extending perpendicularly from the first blade, and the third blade extending perpendicularly from the second blade and parallel to the first blade in the third flexure blade position and parallel to the first blade in the third flexure blade position, wherein the third blade extends to the inner portion inner surface such that the second blade is perpendicular relative to the first blade and the third blade. Further, one of ordinary skill the art would not have been motivated to make such a modification to Alexeeva, as modifying the second blade to extend perpendicularly relative to the first and third blades would cause the second blade to contact and bind with the outer cylindrical portion (54) and/or the inner portion (53) such that the monolithic pivot bearing would no longer function as intended.
Conclusion
The prior art set forth in the attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure in the field of monolithic pivot bearings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Skroupa whose telephone number is (571)270-3220. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM – 3:30 PM ET.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached on (571)270-5281. 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.
/Josh Skroupa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights