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(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 1-9 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, lines 11-13, it is unclear how “the magnetic rotation sensor” is claimed before “a magnetic sensor unit” when para. [0018] of the instant application discloses that “the magnetic sensor unit includes a magnetic sensor.” The magnetic sensor unit will be examined under BRI as the unit including the magnetic rotation sensor and any other parts.
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 (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 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajzler (US 5017868 A) in view of Ito (US 20160265595 A1) and in further view of Ouchi (US 5603575 A) and in further view of Fujii (JP 2006336753 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hajzler discloses (in annotated fig. 1) a sensor-equipped bearing comprising:
a rolling bearing (1) including an inner ring (2),
an outer ring (3),
and a plurality of rolling elements (4);
and a magnetic rotation sensor (7) for detecting a relative rotational motion between the inner ring (2) and the outer ring (3),
wherein the inner ring (2) has:
a raceway surface (raceway surface of 2);
a width surface (WS) located at one end of a width of the inner ring (2);
and an outer peripheral portion (OPP) that is continuous with the width surface (WS) and the raceway surface (raceway surface of 2),
wherein the magnetic rotation sensor (7) includes:
a magnetic ring (10) coupled (via 11) to the outer peripheral portion (OPP) of the inner ring (2);
and a magnetic sensor unit (7 and 10, see 35 U.S.C. 112(b)) coupled to the outer ring (3),
and wherein the magnetic ring (10) includes:
a metal core (10) formed into an annular shape. Wherein, as disclosed in the alternative embodiment of fig. 11, the sensor-equipped bearing further comprises a hook member (45) formed into an annular shape using an elastic deformable material, and wherein the metal core (10) is held by the hook member (45).
Hajzler does not disclose a magnetic rubber member fixed to the metal core.
Ito teaches a magnetic rubber member fixed to the metal core (Para. [0029] teaches the magnetic encoder 6 is a metal core with a magnetic rubber fixed to it).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a magnetic rubber fixed to the metal core, as taught by Ito, in the sensor-equipped bearing of Hajzler for the purpose of having an encoder that has good durability and resilience.
Hajzler in view of Ito does not teach a hook member is made of a resin.
Ouchi teaches the hook member (24 and 41) is made of a resin (col. 6, lines 27-29 teaches that part 41 of the hook member is made out of synthetic resin).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the hook member be made out of resin since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Hajzler in view of Ito and in further view of Ouchi does not teach wherein an outer peripheral groove is formed in the outer peripheral portion of the inner ring so as to circumferentially extend, wherein the hook member has a protrusion engaged in the outer peripheral groove of the inner ring.
Fujii teaches (in annotated fig. 3) an outer peripheral groove (iOG) is formed in the outer peripheral portion of the inner ring (3) so as to circumferentially extend, wherein the hook member (10) has a protrusion engaged in the outer peripheral groove (iOG) of the inner ring (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the protrusion of the hook member be engaged in the outer peripheral groove of the inner ring, as taught by Fujii, in the sensor-equipped bearing of Hajzler in view of Ito and in further view of Ouchi, since such modification is a matter of substituting between one known mounting style with another mounting style to achieve the predictable results of ensuring the hook member and the inner ring are attached together.
PNG
media_image1.png
290
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
837
503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hajzler in view of Ito and in further view of Ouchi and in further view of Fujii teaches the sensor-equipped bearing (in Hajzler annotated fig. 11) according to claim 1, wherein the hook member (45) has a groove (hG, 45 is curved in a way that there is a groove formed) that circumferentially extends, and wherein the metal core (10) is engaged in the groove (hG) of the hook member (45).
PNG
media_image3.png
160
167
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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 of record does not disclose nor render obvious the combination set forth in claim 3.
In particular, for claim 3, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious a sensor-equipped bearing wherein the metal core has a first plate surface and a second plate surface axially opposed to each other, wherein the groove of the hook member is located at a position displaced radially outward from the width surface of the inner ring, wherein the first plate surface is in contact with the width surface of the inner ring, and wherein the groove of the hook member is hooked on the second plate surface in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
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