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
Figures 1(A) and 1(B) should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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 1-2, 9-13, 20, 24, 28-29, 35-36, 42-43 and 47-48 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.
In claim 1, line 6, it is unclear if (Lb- l) should be read into the claim or not. If it is meant to be read into the claim, (Lb- l ) cannot come before l, which is in claim 1, line 7, as that would cause an antecedent basis issue.
In claim 1, lines 13-14, is unclear as “the undercut portion having radius r to the inboard end” is brought in but it is already claimed in lines 9-10 of claim 1. It is unclear if it is the same or a different type of undercut.
In claim 1, lines 14-15, “an amount δ mm” is unclear as the variable δ is not defined and the amount is unknown. It is suggested to amend claim 1 by moving claim 2 up as it is defining this variable.
Claims 9-11 is indefinite as the scope of the claim is unclear because the bushing is defined as a standalone part. Applicant is now claiming the sleeve, the chock, end plate, and the cover. What is the scope? It is unclear if the Applicant is seeking protection for the combination or just the subcombination of the bushing.
In claim 12, line 6, it is unclear if (Lb- l) should be read into the claim or not. If it is meant to be read into the claim, (Lb- l) cannot come before l , which is in claim 12, line 7, as that would cause an antecedent basis issue.
In claim 12, lines 9-10, “a constant amount δ mm” is unclear as the variable δ is not defined and the amount is unknown. It is suggested to amend claim 12 by moving claim 13 up as it is defining this variable.
In claim 20, line 6, it is unclear if (Lb- l) should be read into the claim or not. If it is meant to be read into the claim, (Lb- l) cannot come before l , which is in claim 20, line 7, as that would cause an antecedent basis issue.
In claim 24, line 6, it is unclear if (Lb- l) should be read into the claim or not. If it is meant to be read into the claim, (Lb- l) cannot come before l, which is in claim 24, line 7, as that would cause an antecedent basis issue.
In claim 28, line 7, it is unclear if (Lb- l) should be read into the claim or not. If it is meant to be read into the claim, (Lb- l) cannot come before l, which is in claim 28, line 8, as that would cause an antecedent basis issue.
In claim 28, line 14, is unclear as “the undercut portion having radius r to the inboard end” is brought in but it is already claimed in line 9 of claim 28. It is unclear if it is the same or a different type of undercut.
In claim 28, line 15, “an amount δ mm” is unclear as the variable δ is not defined and the amount is unknown. It is suggested to amend claim 28 by moving claim 29 up as it is defining this variable.
In claim 35, line 8, it is unclear if (Lb- l) should be read into the claim or not. If it is meant to be read into the claim, (Lb- l) cannot come before l, which is in claim 35, line 9, as that would cause an antecedent basis issue.
In claim 35, line 11, “a constant amount δ mm” is unclear as the variable δ is not defined and the amount is unknown. It is suggested to amend claim 35 by moving claim 36 up as it is defining this variable.
In claim 42, line 6, it is unclear if (Lb- l) should be read into the claim or not. If it is meant to be read into the claim, (Lb- l) cannot come before l, which is in claim 42, line 8, as that would cause an antecedent basis issue.
In claim 42, lines 10-11, “an amount δ mm” is unclear as the variable δ is not defined and the amount is unknown. It is suggested to amend claim 42 by moving claim 43 up as it is defining this variable.
In claim 47, line 8, it is unclear if (Lb- l) should be read into the claim or not. If it is meant to be read into the claim, (Lb- l) cannot come before l, which is in claim 47, line 9, as that would cause an antecedent basis issue.
In claim 47, line 10, “a constant amount δ mm” is unclear as the variable δ is not defined and the amount is unknown. It is suggested to amend claim 47 by moving claim 48 up as it is defining this variable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-2, 9-13, 20, 24, 28-29, 35-36, 42-43 and 47-48 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious in claims 1, 20, 24, 28, 35, 42, and 47.
In particular, for claim 1, as best understood, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious a bushing comprising the second portion comprising: (i) an undercut portion having an undercut radius, r, the undercut portion located adjacent to an end of the first portion that is proximate to the inboard end; (ii) a ramp portion located adjacent to the undercut portion, the ramp portion provided with a tapered portion from the undercut portion having radius r to the inboard end, the tapered portion tapered by an amount δ mm, and wherein the ramp portion allows the bushing to deflect as load increases at a maximum radial deflection of δ mm in combination with the other claim limitations and claim 2 as it is defining the variable δ.
In particular, for claim 20, as best understood, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious a bushing comprising the second portion comprising a ramp portion located adjacent to the first portion, the ramp portion provided with a tapered portion from the first portion to the inboard end, the tapered portion by an amount δ mm, and wherein the ramp portion allows the bushing to deflect as load increases at a maximum radial deflection of δ mm, wherein δ mm is defined as (Bearing Load Rating {F in metric tons} / Hydrodynamic Length {LH in mm}) * a wherein a is picked to be in the range 0.02 ≤ a ≤ 0.04, wherein a value of l defined as b * Hydrodynamic Length {LH}, wherein b is picked to be within the range 20% ≤ b ≤ 35% in combination with the other claim limitations.
In particular, for claim 24, as best understood, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious a bearing comprising a full length l of the second portion is undercut by a constant amount δ mm; wherein the second portion allows the bushing to deflect as load increases at a maximum radial deflection of δ mm, wherein, δ mm is defined as (Bearing Load Rating {F in metric tons} / Hydrodynamic Length {LH in mm}) * a wherein a is picked to be in the range 0.02 ≤ a ≤ 0.04, and wherein a value of defined as b * Hydrodynamic Length {LH}, wherein b is picked to be within the range 20% ≤ b ≤ 35% in combination with the other claim limitations.
In particular, for claim 28, as best understood, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious a method for lowering temperature build-up on an inboard side of a bushing comprising (i) an undercut portion having an undercut radius, r, the undercut portion located adjacent to an end of the first portion that is proximate to the inboard end; (ii) a ramp portion located adjacent to the undercut portion, characterized in that, the ramp portion is provided with a tapered portion from the undercut portion having radius r to the inboard end, the tapered portion tapered by an amount δ mm, and wherein the ramp portion allows the bushing to deflect as load increases at a maximum radial deflection of δ mm in combination with the other claim limitations and claim 29 as it is defining the variable δ.
In particular, for claim 35, as best understood, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious a method for lowering temperature build-up on an inboard side of a bushing (300) comprising: the second portion comprising an undercut portion (312) having an undercut radius, r, wherein a full length l of the second portion is undercut by a constant amount δ mm, and wherein the second portion undercut by the constant amount δ mm allows the bushing to deflect as load increases at a maximum radial deflection of δ mm in combination with the other claim limitations and claim 36 as it is defining the variable δ.
In particular, for claim 42, as best understood, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious a method for lowering temperature build-up on an inboard side of a bushing comprising: the second portion comprising a ramp portion located adjacent to the first portion, the ramp portion provided with a tapered portion from the first portion to the inboard end, the tapered portion tapered by an amount δ mm, and wherein the ramp portion allows the bushing to deflect as load increases at a maximum radial deflection of δ mm in combination with the other claim limitations and claim 43 as it is defining the variable δ.
In particular, for claim 47, as best understood, the prior art of record of record does not disclose nor render obvious a method for lowering temperature build-up on an inboard side of a bushing comprising: a full length l of the second portion is undercut by a constant amount δ mm, wherein the second portion allows the bushing to deflect as load increases at a maximum radial deflection of δ mm in combination with the other claim limitations and claim 48 as it is defining the variable δ.
Salter, Jr. (US 4772137 A) discloses an oil film bearing and bushing with a similar structure but lacks the undercut and/or ramp of the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wotjkowski, JR. (US 20250256316 A1) discloses a bearing temperature reduction through sleeve modification but it does not count as prior art.
Keller (US 20150343504 A1) discloses a roll arrangement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIMEE T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 EST.
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.
/AIMEE TRAN NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights