DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the claims filed 3/20/2025.
Claims 21-37 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The 3 filed IDS documents have been considered. See the attached PTO 1449 forms.
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 27-30 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 27-30:
Claim 27 still recites “wherein at least one thread is formed in a region of the lubricant labyrinth seal”. This claimed at least one thread, while briefly mentioned in para. [0070] of the published application, is still indefinite. First, it is unclear how the thread, which is described as allowing “lubricant 26 [to] be conveyed away from the sealing lip 32 during operation of the drive unit 20”, structurally differs from the constriction 38 (e.g., is it a separate element from 38? Is it in communication with 38? How so?). Second, it is described in [0070] as “formed so as to extend in a radial direction or at least so as not to extend axially with respect to the shaft 24”, however, the amended drawings appear to show the thread as a new element, directly adjacent constriction 38, and extending axially. For prior art search purposes, it remains unclear what is to be looked for in the prior art. MPEP 2173.06 II states “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” Because the at least one thread is indefinite, the proper interpretation of claims 27-30 cannot be ascertained and a fair examination of those claims cannot be properly conducted at this time without considerable speculation.
Claims 28-30 are therefore also rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-26 and 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa et al. US 8,186,689 in view of Soda et al. US 2007/0080503
Regarding claim 21:
Miyazawa teaches a sealing geometry (21) for a mobile power tool (1) wherein the mobile power tool has a drive unit (driving shaft 12), wherein the sealing geometry is designed to seal off an interior, containing a lubricant (col. 3, lines 64-66), of the drive unit from an exterior outside the drive unit (col. 4, lines 12- 23).
Miyazawa does not teach the sealing geometry having a seal with at least one sealing lip that bears against a mating surface at least when the drive unit is at a standstill, and a lubricant labyrinth seal, wherein the at least one sealing lip and the lubricant labyrinth seal are arranged separate from each other.
Soda teaches a related sealing geometry (1) for a drive unit (2), wherein the sealing geometry is designed to seal off an interior (“OS”), containing a lubricant ([0029]), of the drive unit from an exterior outside the drive unit (“AS”), the sealing geometry having a seal with at least one sealing lip (15/16) that bears against a mating surface (21) at least when the drive unit is at a standstill ([0034], “the lip seal portion 15 is formed so that when the rotation of the rotating shaft 2 is stopped, the leading lip end 16 is brought, with an appropriate interference, into resilient contact with a seal-abutment face 21”), and
a lubricant labyrinth seal (e.g., the lubricant path that comprises 23/24/25), wherein the at least one sealing lip and the lubricant labyrinth seal are arranged separate from each other (shown in FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sealing geometry of Miyazawa, by providing the sealing geometry with a seal with at least one sealing lip that bears against a mating surface at least when the drive unit is at a standstill, and a lubricant labyrinth seal, wherein the at least one sealing lip and the lubricant labyrinth seal are arranged separate from each other, as taught by Soda, since this would provide a contact seal when the drive unit is at a standstill, and a contactless seal when the drive unit is rotated, leading to reduced friction while maintaining the seal.
Regarding claim 22:
The combination of Miyazawa and Soda teaches the sealing geometry according to claim 21, as discussed above, wherein the lubricant labyrinth seal is arranged upstream of the at least one sealing lip along a flow path of the lubricant (Soda, envisaged in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 23:
The combination of Miyazawa and Soda teaches the sealing geometry according to claim 21, as discussed above, wherein the sealing geometry comprises at least one constriction (e.g., right angle of 11 may be considered a constriction).
Regarding claim 24:
The combination of Miyazawa and Soda teaches the sealing geometry according to claim 23, as discussed above, wherein the at least one constriction is elongated (i.e., it is relatively elongated in the sense that it could have been designed shorter).
Regarding claim 25:
The combination of Miyazawa and Soda teaches the sealing geometry according to claim 21, as discussed above, wherein the sealing geometry has at least one flow obstacle (e.g., 6).
Regarding claim 26:
The combination of Miyazawa and Soda teaches the sealing geometry according to claim 21, as discussed above, wherein the sealing geometry is configured to increase a flow resistance of the lubricant in an exit direction from the interior to the exterior (described in [0071]).
Regarding claim 31:
The combination of Miyazawa and Soda teaches the sealing geometry according to claim 21, as discussed above, wherein the at least one sealing lip of the sealing geometry is configured such that, during operation of the drive unit, the at least one sealing lip lifts off from the mating surface ([0034], last sentence; [0053]).
Regarding claim 32:
The combination of Miyazawa and Soda teaches the sealing geometry according to claim 31, as discussed above, wherein the sealing geometry is designed such that the lifting off of the at least one sealing lip from the mating surface is a result of a centripetal force brought about by the operation of the drive unit ([0034], last sentence; [0053]).
Regarding claim 33:
The combination of Miyazawa and Soda teaches a mobile power tool wherein the mobile power tool has a drive unit and a sealing geometry, wherein the sealing geometry is designed to seal off an interior, containing a lubricant, of the drive unit from an exterior outside the drive unit, wherein the mobile power tool has the sealing geometry according to claim 1 (addressed in rejection of claim 21).
Regarding claim 34:
The combination of Miyazawa and Soda teaches the mobile power tool according to claim 33, as discussed above, wherein the at least one sealing lip of the sealing geometry is configured such that, during operation of the drive unit, the at least one sealing lip lifts off from the mating surface ([0034], last sentence; [0053]).
Regarding claim 35:
The combination of Miyazawa and Soda teaches the mobile power tool according to claim 34, as discussed above, wherein the sealing geometry is designed such that the lifting off or the reduction in the pressure force arises only if a predefined a minimum rotational speed of a shaft of the mobile power tool is exceeded (evident from [0034], last sentence; [0053]).
Regarding claim 36:
The combination of Miyazawa and Soda teaches the mobile power tool according to claim 34, as discussed above, wherein the sealing geometry is designed such that the lifting off or the reduction in the pressure force arises as a result of a centripetal force brought about by the operation of the drive unit (evident from [0034], last sentence; [0053]).
Regarding claim 37:
The combination of Miyazawa and Soda teaches the mobile power tool according to claim 33, as discussed above, further comprising a contaminant labyrinth seal (e.g., the lubricant path that comprises 23/24/25), the contaminant labyrinth seal being arranged on the drive unit (see FIG. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s argues “if the position of the seal gap-defining wall 20 is changed, for example, to adapt a sealing capability of the seal by increasing or decreasing the seal gap 25, the lip seal portion 15 has to be changed as well” and thus Soda does not teach "the at least one sealing lip and the lubricant labyrinth seal are arranged separate from each other". To the extent Examiner grasps Applicant’s reasoning, Examiner respectfully disagrees because as shown in FIG. 1, the lubricant labyrinth path that comprises 23/24/25 is separate from the sealing lip (i.e., the lubricant path defined by 23/24/25 is not a path defined by the lip 15/16), as required of the claims. While it is unclear what Applicant means by changing the position of the seal gap-defining wall 20, it appears an amendment that clarifies the structural configuration of what is meant by “separate” may be necessary to distinguish current claim 1 over Soda’s seal.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408) 918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, ANNA KINSAUL can be reached on 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights