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 .
Prior art of Record
The prior art made of record in this office action shall be referred to as follows:
U.S. 6,527,276 Phillips et al. (‘Phillips hereafter), App 09/409963,
U.S. 4,989,883 David C. Orlowski (‘Orlowski hereafter), Filed 06/14/1989,
U.S. 2014/0086517 Norimatsu et al. (‘Norimatsu hereafter), App 14/115668,
U.S. 2023/0019353 Reynolds et al. (‘Reynolds hereafter), App 17/946989,
U.S. 6,354,115 Henry W. Zahn (‘Zahn hereafter), App 09/421900,
U.S. 6,488,342 De Paiva (‘Paiva hereafter), App 09/889201,
The above references will be referred to hereafter by the names or numbers indicated above.
Claim status:
Claims 1 - 7 are currently being examined.
No Claims have been withdrawn.
No Claims have been canceled.
Claims 2 – 4, 6 and 7 are objected to for allowable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 6,527,276 Phillips et al. (‘Phillips hereafter), and further in view of U.S. 4,989,883 David C. Orlowski (‘Orlowski hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 1, ‘Phillips discloses all the claim limitations including: A method for manufacturing a hub seal (‘Phillips, considerations have been made toward assembling, Col. 2, ln 1 – 13, “Attempts have been made to address the foregoing concerns through the use of various seal arrangements. For example, various types of seal assemblies have been provided at input and output shaft interfaces, both on the gear reducer housing itself, and on various brackets or adapters interfaced with the housing. In the case of shaft-mounted gear reducers, a particular difficulty arises in that the rotating shaft or hub may actually convey contaminants, particularly liquid or semi-liquid contaminants, directly to the seal assembly. Through continuous rotation of the input or output shaft or hub, these materials may progressively ingress into the gear reducer, ultimately resulting in degradation in performance and possible mechanical damage.”
the hub seal (‘Phillips, Fig 2, shows sectional location of Fig 4, Fig 4 shows #78 (soft seal/ hub seal), Figs 2 & 4 shows #34a (bearing sets), Fig 2 #16 (output hub), Fig 4 near #18 (input support)) having a side lip (‘Phillips, Fig 4 (below) shows a lip) and being intended for sealing of a space between an outer ring (‘Phillips, Fig 4, #76a (metallic shield ring/ outer ring)) and a hub of a hub bearing (‘Phillips, Fig 2, #34 (bearing sets/ hub bearing)),
Except ‘Phillips, except is silent regarding: the method being characterized by comprising: setting a set rotation speed as a rotation speed at which a foreign body entering an internal portion of the hub seal is positioned at a desired position in a radial direction orthogonal to an axis line by rotation around the axis line; designing a shape of the side lip such that torque of the hub seal at the set rotation speed becomes a desired value; and manufacturing the hub seal such that the hub seal becomes a hub seal which has the designed shape of the side lip.
However, ‘Orlowski teaches: the method being characterized by comprising: setting a set rotation speed as a rotation speed at which a foreign body entering an internal portion of the hub seal is positioned at a desired position in a radial direction orthogonal to an axis line by rotation around the axis line; designing a shape of the side lip such that torque of the hub seal at the set rotation speed becomes a desired value; and manufacturing the hub seal such that the hub seal becomes a hub seal which has the designed shape of the side lip (‘Orlowski, Col. 1, ln 5 - 25, “This invention relates generally to mechanical equipment shaft sealing devices and more particularly concerns a shaft seal mechanism which seals effectively when a shaft is at rest, and which changes configurations so as to seal effectively but without friction when the shaft is rotating at an operating speed.”
“Auxiliary mechanical equipment shaft seals, sometimes called bearing isolators or sealing rings, have become increasingly important to modern mechanical equipment, especially for equipment called upon to operate in hostile applications. For example, mechanical power transmission units used in rock quarries are often subjected to highly abrasive dust particles. Normal elastomeric lip or O-ring shaft seals can quickly wear out and fail in environments such as these. Dust and exterior contaminants cannot be excluded from the interior of the transmission housing by a failed standard sealing device. Nor can oil or other fluids be prevented from leaking out of the transmission devices past a ruined O-ring or a worn lip seal.”
Col. 4, ln 2 - 13, “As will be understood by those skilled in the relevant arts, the seal member 60 increasingly deforms and lifts away from engagement with the underlying stator as the centrifugal forces increase. These centrifugal forces increase in squared proportion to the linear speed of the moving sealing element 60. It is recommended that the bearing seal 10 be sized and arranged so that the seal member 60 experiences a minimum peripheral translational speed of from 600 to 800 feet per minute when the shaft is turning at its normal operating speed.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Phillips, with a method of using centrifugal forces as taught by ‘Orlowski, in order to provide a system of diverting dirt and debris from the bearings (‘Orlowski, Col. 4, ln 2 - 13).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 6,527,276 Phillips et al. (‘Phillips hereafter), and further in view of U.S. 4,989,883 David C. Orlowski (‘Orlowski hereafter), and in further view of U.S. 2014/0086517 Norimatsu et al. (‘Norimatsu hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 5, ‘Phillips and ‘Orlowski discloses all the claim except is silent regarding: designing the side lip by adjusting at least any of a thickness of a tip end portion of the side lip, a thickness of a root portion of the side lip, and a length of the root portion of the side lip such that the torque of the hub seal at the set rotation speed becomes the desired value.
However, ‘Norimatsu teaches: designing the side lip by adjusting at least any of a thickness of a tip end portion of the side lip, a thickness of a root portion of the side lip, and a length of the root portion of the side lip such that the torque of the hub seal at the set rotation speed becomes the desired value (‘Norimatsu, Para 0047, “In one embodiment of the present invention, the outboard end of the protective cover may extend beyond the stationary member in an outboard direction such that the outboard end of the protective cover and the rotational member defines a non-contact seal gap therebetween. The "non-contact seal gap" used herein refers to a narrow gap of size that can, while there is a relative rotation between the stationary member and the rotational member, block incoming external contaminants such as water. In such a configuration, the seal between the protective cover and the stationary member may form a double-seal structure that includes a seal lip contacting with an outer peripheral surface of the stationary member and a non-contact seal defined between an outboard end of the protective cover and the rotational member. This may provide a more reliable outboard seal, thus more reliably avoiding possible failure of sensors due to an external environment and enabling accurate determination of a load.” The seal and seal lip are designed with an accurate determination of the load. Load on a bearing is a function of torque. Para 0041, “The outboard end of the protective cover may extend beyond the stationary member in an outboard direction such that the outboard end of the protective cover and the rotational member defines a non-contact seal gap therebetween. In such a configuration, a non-contact seal gap may provide sealing for a space between the protective cover and the rotational member. This may result in improved seal ability without accompanying torque increase.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Phillips, with a method of designing where the size of the lip/ seal considers the torque of the hub and rotational speed as taught by ‘Norimatsu, in order to determine an increase in load on the bearing due to debris, rust or dirt (‘Norimatsu, Para 0011).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 2 with the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein " a rotation speed of the rotation; “checking whether the position of the foreign body at the set rotation speed is the desired position in the obtained relationship between the position of the foreign body in the basic hub seal and the rotation speed.”
The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Phillips, ‘Orlowski and ‘Norimatsu).
‘Phillips and ‘Orlowski do not teach the checking position of foreign body at speed between the foreign body and the basic hub seal and rotational speed.
‘Norimatsu, does sense dirt entering into a sensing environment (Para 0038), however ‘Norimatsu does not obtain a relationship between the foreign body in the basic hub seal and the rotational speed.
Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. Furthermore, Examiner finds no motivation found to modify the prior art to include the specific limitations of dependent claim 3 – 4, 6 & 7. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited.
[AltContent: textbox (Side lip)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
456
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
U.S. 6,527,276 Figure 4
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
‘Reynolds teaches: General hub seal bearing.
‘Zahn teaches: A washing machine seal for the bearing.
‘Paiva teaches: General hub seal bearing.
Examiner encourages Applicant to fill out and submit form PTO-SB-439 to allow internet communications in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 (MPEP 02.03). Should the need arise to perfect applicant-proposed or examiner’s amendments, authorization for e-mail correspondence would have already been authorized and would save time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE AVERICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7565. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 3:00PM M- F 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LAWRENCE AVERICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
09/02/2026
