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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the paragraph numbers are not in numerically ascending order with only one of each number (e.g. there are two paragraphs numbered [0006], two paragraphs numbered [0023], two paragraphs numbered [0025], and paragraph [0022] comes after paragraph [0023], etc.).
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference number “72” is used to refer to both the “sup[port portion” and the “mounting portion (see paras. [0019]-[0023]).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “by curvilinear surface” in line 3 should read “by a curvilinear surface”. 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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “mounted to the rotatable flanged ring” and “mounted to the stationary radially outer ring”. These limitations are indefinite as these rings are only previously recited in the intended use of the preamble of this claim and thus it is unclear if these recitations are an attempt to merely further limit the intended use or if they are an attempt to require the rings (and possible the bearing unit as a whole) for infringement to occur (which interpretation Examiner notes would appear to render claim 10 a substantial duplicate and/or a failure to further limit claim 1). Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “for mounting to the rotatable flanged ring” and “for mounting to the stationary radially outer ring”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “interference fit on the inner flanged ring”. This limitation is indefinite as the ring is only previously recited in the intended use of the preamble of this claim and thus it is unclear if this recitation is an attempt to merely further limit the intended use or if they are an attempt to require the ring (and possible the bearing unit as a whole) for infringement to occur. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “for interference fit on the inner flanged ring”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “interference fit to the radially outer ring. This limitation is indefinite as the ring is only previously recited in the intended use of the preamble of this claim and thus it is unclear if this recitation is an attempt to merely further limit the intended use or if they are an attempt to require the ring (and possible the bearing unit as a whole) for infringement to occur. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “for interference fit on the radially outer ring”.
Claims 2-10 are indefinite at least by virtue of depending on indefinite claim 1 above.
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 1-3, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gulli (US 2015/0097340).
With regard to claim 1, Gulli discloses a sealing device (100B/C) for sealing from external contaminants between a stationary radially outer ring and a rotatable inner flanged ring of a bearing unit (as seen in Figs. 1-2 it is capable of this intended use in the limitation as it forms a seal between 4 and 3 of bearing unit 2), the sealing device comprising: a first annular shield (107) mounted on the rotatable flanged ring (as seen in Figs. 1-2 and in light of the above 112(b) rejection of this limitation) and formed of a metallic material (as seen in the cross-hatching thereof, detailed in para. [0017], etc.); a second annular shield (108) mounted on the stationary radially outer ring (as seen in Figs. 1-2 and in light of the above 112(b) rejection of this limitation) and formed of a metallic material (as seen in the cross-hatching thereof, detailed in para. [0017], etc.); and an annular sealing element (114) integrally supported by the second shield (as seen in Figs. 1-2) and formed of an elastomeric material (as detailed in para. [0017], etc.), the sealing element having an annular contacting lip (116) and a non-contacting lip (115) located radially external to the contacting lip (as seen in Figs. 1-2); wherein the non-contacting lip has a curvilinear cross-section (as seen in Figs. 1-2 at 125 and comprising the two portions labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 1 below) defined by different radii of curvature (as seen in Examiner annotated Fig. 1 below) and a concavity in the external radial direction (as seen in Figs. 1-2 defined by the surface of 125).
PNG
media_image1.png
585
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Gulli discloses that the non-contacting lip includes: a rigid axially inner first portion (as labeled “First Portion” in Examiner annotated Fig. 1 above) substantially completely covering a corresponding intermediate portion of the second shield (e.g. at 113) on a side of the second shield facing the first annular shield (as seen in Figs. 1-2); and a free axially outer second portion (as labeled “Second Portion” in Examiner annotated Fig. 1 above).
With regard to claim 3, Gulli discloses that the first portion is delimited radially outwardly by a curvilinear surface (i.e. as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 1 above) having a radius of curvature (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2 as it is curved it has at least one such) and the second portion is delimited radially outwardly by curvilinear surface (i.e. as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 1 above) mated to the curvilinear surface of the first portion (i.e. as seen in Figs. 1-2 they are connected) and having a radius of curvature (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2 as it is curved it has at least one such), the radius of curvature of the curvilinear surface of the first portion being greater than the radius of curvature of the curvilinear surface of the second portion (as seen in Figs. 1-2 as a circle embodying a portion of the curvilinear surface of the first portion would be larger than a circle embodying a portion of the curvilinear surface of the second portion).
Claims 1-2 and 4-10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uemoto et al. (US 2020/0292001).
With regard to claim 1, Uemoto discloses a sealing device (46) for sealing from external contaminants between a stationary radially outer ring and a rotatable inner flanged ring of a bearing unit (as seen in Figs. 1-4 it is capable of this intended use in the limitation as it forms a seal between 13 and 12 of bearing unit 10), the sealing device comprising: a first annular shield (52) mounted on the rotatable flanged ring (as seen in Figs. 1-4 and in light of the above 112(b) rejection of this limitation) and formed of a metallic material (as seen in the cross-hatching thereof); a second annular shield (80) mounted on the stationary radially outer ring (as seen in Figs. 1-4 and in light of the above 112(b) rejection of this limitation) and formed of a metallic material (as seen in the cross-hatching thereof, detailed in para. [0036], etc.); and an annular sealing element (81) integrally supported by the second shield (as seen in Figs. 1-4) and formed of an elastomeric material (as detailed in para. [0036], etc.), the sealing element having an annular contacting lip (58) and a non-contacting lip (including 81d-e) located radially external to the contacting lip (as seen in Figs. 1-4); wherein the non-contacting lip has a curvilinear cross-section (as seen in Figs. 1-4 and comprising the two portions labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 1 below) defined by different radii of curvature (as seen in Examiner annotated Fig. 1 below as the radially outer curve must be different than the radially inner curve as the lip is at least constant thickness there) and a concavity in the external radial direction (as seen in Figs. 1-4 defined by 81b, d, e, etc.).
PNG
media_image2.png
728
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Uemoto discloses that the non-contacting lip includes: a rigid axially inner first portion (i.e. the base portion of the lip) substantially completely covering a corresponding intermediate portion of the second shield (e.g. at 80b in Fig. 3) on a side of the second shield facing the first annular shield (as seen in Figs. 1-4); and a free axially outer second portion (i.e. the free end of the lip as seen in Figs. 1-4).
With regard to claim 4, Uemoto discloses that the first shield has a mounting portion (60) interference fit on the inner flanged ring (as seen in Figs. 1-3 and in light of the above 112(b) rejection of this limitation) and a peripheral portion (including at least 64, 66, 68) radially opposite the mounting portion (as seen in Figs. 1-4), the peripheral portion including a first axially-extending sleeve portion (64) and a second axially-extending sleeve portion (68), the two sleeve portions being connected by a first radially extending flange portion (66).
With regard to claim 5, Uemoto discloses that the second shield is coaxial with the first shield (as seen in Figs. 1-3) and has a mounting portion (including at least 54) interference fit to the radially outer ring (as seen in Figs. 1-3 and in light of the above 112(b) rejection of this limitation) and a support portion (80b) radially opposite the mounting portion (as seen in Figs. 1-3), the support portion including a first flange portion (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 2 above), the first flange portion extending radially toward the mounting portion of the first shield (as seen in Figs. 1-3) and carrying the contacting lip (as seen in Figs. 1-3), and an intermediate truncated cone portion (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 2 above) connecting the first flange portion to the mounting portion (as seen in Figs. 1-3).
With regard to claim 6, Uemoto discloses that the mounting portion of the second shield includes a second flange portion (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 2 above) extending radially outwardly from the intermediate portion (as seen in Figs. 1-3) and a sleeve portion (54) extending axially from the second flange portion (as seen in Figs. 1-3).
With regard to claim 7, Uemoto discloses that the sealing element has a sleeve portion (81a) completely covering the sleeve portion of the second shield on a side facing the first shield (as seen in Figs. 1-3).
With regard to claim 8, Uemoto discloses that the sealing element has a deflector (53) extending radially outwardly with respect to the sleeve portion of the sealing element (as seen in Figs. 1-3), an axial space (72) being defined between the deflector and the second sleeve portion of the first shield (as seen in Fig. 2-3).
With regard to claim 9, Uemoto discloses that the sealing element has an appendage (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 2 above) protruding axially outwardly from the sleeve portion of the sealing element (as seen in Figs. 2-4) and facing the first flange portion of the first shield (as seen in Figs. 2-4).
With regard to claim 10, Uemoto discloses that a bearing unit (including ball bearings 32) provided with a sealing device according to claim 1 (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above), the sealing device being housed in a cavity axially external to the bearing unit (as seen in Figs. 1-3 it is in an area that is at least partially axially external to the bearing unit, which is all that is disclosed by Applicant), the bearing unit also including: a radially inner and rotatable flanged ring (13); a radially outer and stationary ring (12); and a plurality of rolling bodies (32) disposed between the stationary ring and the rotatable flanged ring (as seen in Figs. 1-4).
Examiner’s Recommendations
In the interest of compact prosecution Examiner recommends incorporating claims 3 and 4 into claim 1, as well as further defining the “concavity” as having an approximately semi-circular shape. Though such should substantially advance prosecution additional search and consideration would be required to fully ascertain allowability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provide additional examples of bearing seals with two shield members and a seal member with a non-contacting lip with various curves therein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5354. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/NICHOLAS L FOSTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675