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 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 8, 9, 20 and 21 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. The recitations of claims 8, 9, 20 and 21 have been incorporated into the respective independent claim and thus these recitations are duplicate. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8-14, 16, 17 and 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Licht, USP 3,795,427.
Regarding claim 1, Licht discloses a foil bearing (figure 2) comprising: a bearing bushing (12) having a central recess (36), wherein said central recess has a bearing surface for mounting a shaft (shaft 18 passes through and supported by a foil bearing element just like in the instant application) such that the shaft is rotatable about a longitudinal axis; at least one bearing foil (39 or 46/47) arranged in said central recess and arranged so as to form a gap between said at least one bearing foil and a running surface of the shaft (see figure 3 with the a gap between the parts surrounding a majority of 18, however during operation film forms to support the shaft, see column 3 lines 3-25); wherein at least one of: said bearing bushing has, on at least one side of said bearing bushing in a region of said central recess, an insertion surface (37) extending obliquely with respect to the longitudinal axis, applicable to multiple embodiments, such as figure 2, not just figure 3 of the instant application, thus where the foil meets the corner where the insertion surface and the cylindrical meet would define an alignment, this is the same relationship as illustrated in figure 2 of the instant application is shown in Licht and thus Licht would anticipate this recitation).
Regarding claim 14, Licht discloses a rotor-stator arrangement or bearing arrangement (figure 1 shows a rotor-stator arrangement that includes a bearing arrangement) comprising: a foil bearing (left side of figure 1); a shaft (18) arranged in said foil bearing such that said shaft is rotatable about a longitudinal axis; said foil bearing including a bearing bushing (12) having a central recess (central hole for 18), said central recess having a bearing surface for mounting said shaft (18) such that the shaft is rotatable about a longitudinal axis; at least one bearing foil (39 or 46/47) arranged in said central recess and being arranged so as to form a gap between said at least one bearing foil and a running surface of the shaft (see figure 3 and explanation in the rejection of claim 1 above); wherein at least one of: said bearing bushing has, on at least one side of said bearing bushing in a region of said central recess, an insertion surface (37) extending obliquely with respect to the longitudinal axis, further extending the length of the bushing relative to the foil); and, wherein a side edge defining said width dimension of said at least one bearing foil is in alignment with an oblique extent of said insertion surface (based on paragraph 0019 the alignment feature appears to be applicable to multiple embodiments, such as figure 2, not just figure 3 of the instant application, thus where the foil meets the corner where the insertion surface and the cylindrical meet would define an alignment, this is the same relationship as illustrated in figure 2 of the instant application is shown in Licht and thus Licht would anticipate this recitation).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Licht discloses that the at least one of said insertion surface and said shaft insertion surface is configured as a circumferential chamfer and extends between an end face of said bearing bushing or shaft and said bearing surface on said bearing bushing or the running surface on the shaft (37 is a chamfer feature that extends between an end face of the bushing to the surface 36 that supports the foil bearing).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Licht discloses that the at least one of said insertion surface and said shaft insertion surface, based on the longitudinal axis of said bearing bushing or shaft, extends obliquely at an angle α of less than 45° (the angle of 37 is clearly less than 45 degrees in figure 2).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Licht discloses that said at least one bearing foil has a width dimension that is shortened compared to a width of said bearing surface of said bearing bushing (the inner surface of the bushing that includes both 36 and 37, also 38, is longer than the width of the bearing element 39 mounted there in, this is similar to what is shown in the instant application where the bearing extends the full length of the bushing except for in the region of the insertion surface).
Regarding claims 9 and 21, Licht discloses that said at least one bearing foil is shortened relative to said bearing surface, at least at one face of said bearing bushing, such that a side edge defining a width dimension of said at least one bearing foil is in alignment with an oblique extent of said insertion surface (the bearing element 36 is shortened and starts/stops where 37 meets 36 just like in the instant application, this places the side of the foil in alignment with the oblique extent).
Regarding claims 10 and 22, Licht discloses that a plurality of said at least one bearing foil are arranged one above another in said gap between said bearing surface of said bearing bushing and said running surface of said shaft (the multiple turns of 39 creates a plurality of stacked foil layers and 46/47 is also a multiple layer configuration, each layer being considered a foil).
Regarding claims 11 and 23, Licht discloses that said plurality of said at least one bearing foil includes an inner bearing foil arranged on an inside and an outer bearing foil arranged on an outside (the inner most layer is an inside foil and the outer most layer is an outside foil); and, said inner bearing foil has an internal width dimension that is shortened compared to an external width dimension of said outer bearing foil (the tapering in figure 4 creates a shorter inner foil compared to the outer foil).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, Licht discloses that said inner bearing foil and said outer bearing foil each have side edges that are in alignment in at least one end region with an extent of at least one of said insertion surface and said shaft insertion surface (the tapering in figure 4 creates a tapered or sloped end to the foil bearing as a whole, this would extend from the insertion surface in a similar manner to how the different lengths create a tapered extension from the insertion surface in figure 3 of the instant application).
Regarding claims 13 and 25, Licht discloses an axially protruding locking element arranged on an end face of said bearing bushing (bolt 25 when inserted protrudes from an end face of the flange portion of the bearing bushing, this is similar to the inserted pin element disclosed in the instant application, only when inserted does the bushing include this feature).
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) 1-8, 10, 14-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, CN 113107969, in view of Licht, USP 3,795,427
NOTE: prior to addressing the claim limitations the claim interpretation for this rejection will be explained. Claim 1 sets forth an alternative of “at least one” and then defines an option of the bearing bushing having an insertion surface or a shaft having a shaft insertion surface, thus the claim covers three options, A-just the bearing bushing with the feature, B-just the shaft or C- both the shaft and bushing with the feature. However, the addition to the claim then goes on to only address the bearing foil relative to “said insertion surface”. This addition to the claim would only be applicable to options A and C above as option B does not require a bushing insertion surface. The application of Li against the claims was, and currently remains, applicable to option B, treating option B, as it does not have a bushing insertion surface result in the last clause of the claim not being limiting relative to this alternative of the claim.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, see rejection under USC 112(d) above, Li discloses a foil bearing (5) comprising: a bearing bushing (51) having a central recess (central hole for 2), wherein said central recess has a bearing surface for mounting a shaft (2) such that the shaft is rotatable about a longitudinal axis; at least one bearing foil (52/53) arranged in said central recess and adapted to form a gap between said at least one bearing foil and a running surface of the shaft (see figure 2 showing the gap between 2 and 53); and, wherein at least one of: said bearing bushing has, on at least one side of said bearing bushing in a region of said central recess, an insertion surface extending obliquely with respect to the longitudinal axis, and, said bearing bushing (51) is configured to receive a shaft portion of the shaft that has a shaft insertion surface (sloped surface indicated by 24) extending obliquely with respect to the longitudinal axis.
Li does not explicitly disclose any specific size of the foil relative to the bearing bushing/bearing surface and thus does not disclose that the at least one bearing foil has a width dimension that is shortened compared to the width of said bearing surface of said bushing.
Licht teaches that a bearing foil can have a width dimension that is shortened compared to a width of said bearing surface of said bearing bushing (see figure 2, the bearing surface of Licht can be considered as 36 and the surface of 38, this results in a foil that is inward of both axial ends of the bushing and thus shorter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Li and use a housing/bushing with at least a flange feature at one end, like 38 in Licht, for the purpose and predictable of providing a stop or seat to prevent the foil bearing from falling out of the housing in an axial direction. By using the flange the length of the bushing and corresponding inner surface which forms the bearing surface the resulting device has a foil width that is shortened with respect to that of the bearing surface of said bearing bushing as required by the claim.
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Li discloses a rotor-stator arrangement or bearing arrangement (figure 1 shows a rotor-stator arrangement that includes a bearing arrangement) comprising: a foil bearing (5); a shaft (2) arranged in said foil bearing such that said shaft is rotatable about a longitudinal axis; said foil bearing including a bearing bushing (51) having a central recess (central hole for 2), said central recess having a bearing surface for mounting said shaft (2) such that the shaft is rotatable about a longitudinal axis; at least one bearing foil (52/53) arranged in said central recess and is adapted to form a gap between said at least one bearing foil and a running surface of the shaft (see figure 2 showing the gap between 2 and 53); and, wherein at least one of: said bearing bushing has, on at least one side of said bearing bushing in a region of said central recess, an insertion surface extending obliquely with respect to the longitudinal axis, and, said bearing bushing (51) is configured to receive a shaft portion of the shaft that has a shaft insertion surface (24) extending obliquely with respect to the longitudinal axis.
Li does not explicitly disclose any specific size of the foil relative to the bearing bushing/bearing surface and thus does not disclose that the at least one bearing foil has a width dimension that is shortened compared to the width of said bearing surface of said bushing.
Licht teaches that a bearing foil can have a width dimension that is shortened compared to a width of said bearing surface of said bearing bushing (see figure 2, the bearing surface of Licht can be considered as 36 and the surface of 38, this results in a foil that is inward of both axial ends of the bushing and thus shorter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Li and use a housing/bushing with at least a flange feature at one end, like 38 in Licht, for the purpose and predictable of providing a stop or seat to prevent the foil bearing from falling out of the housing in an axial direction. By using the flange the length of the bushing and corresponding inner surface which forms the bearing surface the resulting device has a foil width that is shortened with respect to that of the bearing surface of said bearing bushing as required by the claim.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Li discloses that the at least one of: said insertion surface is formed on both sides of said bearing bushing, and the shaft insertion surface is formed along two shaft portions of the shaft that are arranged at a mutual distance (shaft 2 has two insertion surfaces indicated by 24 and R, one on the left side of the shaft and one on the right side of the shaft in figure 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Li discloses that the at least one of said insertion surface and said shaft insertion surface is configured as a circumferential chamfer and extends between an end face of said bearing bushing and said bearing surface on said bearing bushing or the shaft and the running surface on the shaft (24 in Li is a chamfer feature that extends between an end face of the shaft that forms the transition between the shaft body and the journal mounting portion and the surface of the shaft that cooperates with the bearing).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Li discloses that the at least one of said insertion surface and said shaft insertion surface, based on the longitudinal axis of said bearing bushing or shaft, extends obliquely at an angle α of less than 45° (the angle at which the surface indicated by 24 extends is illustrated as less than 45 degrees in figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Li clearly shows a device with a shaft insertion surface that is angled at an oblique angle of less than 45 degrees (24 in figure 1).
Li does not disclose that this angle is specifically 30 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Li and set the angle of the surface to 30 degrees, since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific slope angle on the shaft end solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless of the specific inclination of the oblique angle (see translation middle of page 8, paragraph beginning “For example”, which explains that the purpose of surface 24 is to channel lubricant from the foil bearing to the rolling element bearing, the degree of slope does not change this function).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Li discloses that at least one of said insertion surface and said shaft insertion surface is convexly curved (see attached translation, middle of page 8, paragraph beginning “For example” which state that the surface 24 can be convex).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Li discloses that said at least one bearing foil has a width dimension corresponding to a width of said bearing surface of said bearing bushing (based on the bushing body and the heavier line weight on the inner surface of 5 in figure 1, the heavier weight indicating the foil bearing, the two elements have the same axial/width dimension).
Regarding claims 10 and 22, Li discloses that a plurality of said at least one bearing foil are arranged one above another in said gap between said bearing surface of said bearing bushing and said running surface of said shaft (foil sections 52 and 53, in foil bearings it is common practice to layer foil sections to form the bearing foil assembly).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licht, USP 3,795,427.
Regarding claim 5, Licht clearly shows device with an insertion surface (37) that is angled at an oblique angle of less than 45 degrees (see figure 2).
Licht does not disclose that this angle is specifically 30 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Licht and set the angle of the surface to 30 degrees, since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific slope angle solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless of the specific inclination of the oblique angle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to Li and the application of the reference under 35 USC 102 are moot as the amendment has necessitated a new grounds of rejection using the reference under 35 USC 103. However, Applicant argues Li relative to the features of the bearing bushing added to the independent claims, however as explained in the rejection under 35 USC 103 above the oblique surface, based on the claim construction and the alternatives presented therein this is not necessarily a requirement of the claim. When a claim presents alternatives, arguing that a reference does not disclose a particular alternative it is not used against is not persuasive in addressing the rejection. Li has been applied to the shaft features of the alternative in the claim not the bearing bushing feature.
Applicant further points out that Li uses the slope surface as a refrigerant guide. However, the particular use of a feature does not exclude a reference from anticipating structure of a claim. A claim is limited by the structure positively recited not how the structure is used, likewise when applying a reference against the claim the intended use or function of the device or subcomponent thereof is not structurally limiting and as long as the applied reference discloses the structure the claim can be rejected.
With regards to Licht, Applicant’s argument is that the foil edge of Licht ends abruptly and bluntly and is not in alignment with the oblique extent. Applicant supports the argument by pointing to paragraph 0044 which references 22 and 22’ as forming a wedge. However the requirement for the single side edge of the claim to form a wedge is not recited by the claim. The claim only requires that the parts be in alignment which in the summary of the invention, as explained above, appears to be applicable to all embodiments shown. Figure 2 of the instant application shows an alignment configuration that is constant with that shown by Licht in figure 2. The wedge that Applicant is arguing is formed by the multiple layers of the foil each being subsequently shorter and this shortening of the layers forming a continuation or alignment with the extent of the oblique surface, this is not recited by the claim. It appears that Applicant is attempting to excluded embodiments like figure 2 of the instant application by the insertion of the last clause of the claim in the amendment however the language used is not supported by the paragraph recited, the language used is found in the summary where it appears to be applicable to all embodiments and thus the claim must be examined in treated based on this, not a paragraph from the disclosure that does not match the claim language as currently presented.
Conclusion
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