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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “has” in the last line should read “have”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “characterized in that” in line 2 should read “have”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “15” in line 3 should read “15%”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the commas at the end of lines 2, 3, 4, and 11 should be semicolons, the “and” in line 11 should be removed, line 12 should begin with “wherein”, the colon in line 12 should be removed and lines 13-14 should be moved to the end of line 12, and lines 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 should be indented one less (i.e. as they are not part of the running plate). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-9, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (US 2006/0290070).
With regard to claim 1, Park discloses a seal arrangement (including at least 10) with (examiner notes this is interpreted as “comprising”) a sealing element (10) which has a carrier plate (14) with a sealing body (12) molded thereon of an elastomer material (as described in para. [0026], etc.), the sealing body having at least a first sealing lip (at 16/20 as seen in Fig. 1), and the elastomer material has at least a first filler (i.e. one of PTFE micro-powder, carbon, glass powder, etc. as detailed in paras. [0031], [0035], [0037], etc.) and a second filler (i.e. a different one of PTFE micro-powder, carbon, glass powder, etc. as detailed in paras. [0031], [0035], [0037], etc.) different from the first filler (as detailed above), wherein particles of at least one of the first filler or the second filler has a higher hardness than the elastomer material of the sealing body (as at least carbon and glass are harder than elastomer (e.g. see the disclosed elastomers in paras. [0026], etc. which have known in the art material hardness of less than that of at least one of the fillers).
With regard to claim 2, Park discloses that the first filler is made of carbon (see the detailed explanation in the rejection of claim 1 above and paras. [0035], etc.).
With regard to claim 3, Park discloses that the second filler is made of PTFE micropowder (see the detailed explanation in the rejection of claim 1 above and paras. [0031], etc.).
With regard to claim 4, Park discloses that the elastomer material comprises particles of a third filler made of glass powder or phenolic resin (as detailed in para. [0037], etc. disclosing glass beads in powder form and paras. [0042] disclosing there may be plural functional fillers).
With regard to claim 5, Park discloses that the elastomer material is made of a vulcanized rubber (as disclosed in the abstract, etc.).
With regard to claim 6, Park discloses that the particles of the first filler and the particles of the second filler have different geometric shapes (as detailed in paras. [0035], [0037], etc. at least when one is carbon fiber (i.e. fibrous shaped) and one is glass beads (i.e. as beads are at least approximately spherical) or PTFE micropowder (i.e. disclosed as some being spherical in para. [0050]).
With regard to claim 7, Park discloses that the particles of the first filler are spherical or ellipsoidal (i.e. when the first filler is glass beads (i.e. as beads are at least approximately spherical) or PTFE micropowder (i.e. disclosed as some being spherical in para. [0050])) and the particles of the second filler are fibrous (at least when one is carbon fiber (i.e. fibrous shaped)).
With regard to claim 8, Park discloses that the elastomer material is provided with 1.5% to 15% of the first filler (i.e. at least when the first filler is the PTFE, which para. [0056], etc. discloses as present in 5-30% wt.).
With regard to claim 9, Park discloses that the elastomer material is provided with 1.5% to 15% of the second filler (i.e. at least when the second filler is the PTFE, which para. [0056], etc. discloses as present in 5-30% wt.).
With regard to claim 14, Park discloses that the elastomer material is provided with 3% to 7% of the first filler (i.e. at least when the first filler is the PTFE, which para. [0056], etc. discloses as present in 5-30% wt.).
With regard to claim 15, Park discloses that the elastomer material is provided with 3% to 7% of the first filler (i.e. at least when the first filler is the glass or carbon, which para. [0035], etc. discloses as present in 0.1-50% wt.).
With regard to claim 16, Park discloses that the second filler made of glass powder (as detailed in para. [0037], etc. disclosing glass beads in powder form).
With regard to claim 18, Park discloses that the particles of the first filler are fibrous (at least when the first filler is carbon fiber (i.e. fibrous shaped) and the particles of the second filler are spherical or ellipsoidal (i.e. when the second filler is glass beads (i.e. as beads are at least approximately spherical) or PTFE micropowder (i.e. disclosed as some being spherical in para. [0050])).
Claims 1 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krapf et al. (WO2022218459).
With regard to claim 1, Krapf discloses seal arrangement (including 1/24) with (examiner notes this is interpreted as “comprising”) a sealing element (1/24) which has a carrier plate (2) with a sealing body (3) molded thereon of an elastomer material (as described in the abstract, etc.), the sealing body having at least a first sealing lip (5 as seen in Figs. 2-3, etc.), and the elastomer material has at least a first filler (6, as disclosed in the English language abstract, etc.) and a second filler (i.e. another 6, as disclosed in the second to last main paragraph of the specification of the Examiner provided English language translation may be a different material. Additionally see the middle paragraphs describing the different material that may be “in addition to” the first filler. Finally see the seventh main paragraph of the translation of the specification which discloses that there may be a mix of different shaped particles which can be interpreted as different fillers even if the same material composition) different from the first filler (as detailed above), wherein particles of at least one of the first filler or the second filler has a higher hardness than the elastomer material of the sealing body (as disclosed in the English language abstract, etc.).
With regard to claim 10, Krapf discloses a bearing (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.), comprising at least one outer ring (11), at least one inner ring (12/25), at least one seal arrangement according to claim 1 (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above), the sealing arrangement arranged spatially between the at least one inner ring and the respective at least one outer ring (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.), a running plate (4) sealingly contacting the first sealing lip (as seen in in Figs. 1, etc.), and one of the carrier plate (2) or the running plate arranged to be rotatable relative to a remaining one of carrier plate or the running plate (as seen in Figs. 1, etc.).
With regard to claim 11, Krapf discloses a second sealing lip (18).
With regard to claim 12, Krapf discloses a third sealing lip (26).
With regard to claim 13, Krapf discloses that the first sealing lip and the second sealing lip extend axially, and the third sealing lip extends radially (as seen in Figs. 1-3).
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.
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.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krapf et al. (WO2022218459) in view of Park (US 2006/0290070).
With regard to claim 19, Krapf discloses a bearing (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.), comprising: an outer ring (11), an inner ring (12/25), a plurality of rolling elements (23, 27) disposed between the inner ring and the outer ring (as seen in Figs. 1-3), a seal arrangement (including at least 1/24) disposed between the inner ring and the outer ring (as seen in Figs. 1-3), the seal arrangement comprising: a carrier plate (2) fixed to the outer ring (as seen in Figs. 1-3), the carrier plate having a molded body (3) thereon (as seen in Figs. 1-3), the molded body comprising at least one elastically deformable sealing lip (5) formed integrally with the molded body (as seen in Figs. 1-3), and the molded body and the elastically deformable sealing lip constructed from an elastomer material (as disclosed in the English language abstract, etc.) having a first filler, a second filler, and a third filler (i.e. in at least that the filler 6 can be comprised of “ellipsoidal, spherical and/or fibrous particles”. See at least the 7th main paragraph in the English language specification disclosing such), and a running plate (4): sealingly contacting the at least one elastically deformable sealing lip (as seen in Figs. 1-3), fixed to the inner ring (as seen in Figs. 1-3), and wherein: the first filler, the second filler, and the third filler are different from each other (See at least the 7th main paragraph in the English language specification disclosing three differently shaped fillers which due to the “and” can all be present), and the fillers comprise carbon, glass, PTFE, phenolic resin (see main paragraphs 11-16 of the English language specification).
Krapf does not appear to explicitly state that the first filler comprises carbon, the second filler comprises glass, phenolic resin, or PTFE, and the third filler comprises glass, phenolic resin, or PTFE.
Park discloses a similar seal arrangement (including at least 10) with (examiner notes this is interpreted as “comprising”) a sealing element (10) which has a carrier plate (14) with a sealing body (12) molded thereon of an elastomer material (as described in para. [0026], etc.), the sealing body having at least a first sealing lip (at 16/20 as seen in Fig. 1), and the elastomer material has at least a first filler (e.g., carbon [0035], etc.), a second filler (i.e. PTFE micro-powder as detailed in paras. [0031], etc.), and a third filler made of glass powder or phenolic resin (as detailed in para. [0037], etc. disclosing glass beads in powder form and paras. [0042] disclosing there may be plural functional fillers), each filler different from the each other (as detailed above), wherein particles of at least one of the first filler or the second filler has a higher hardness than the elastomer material of the sealing body (as at least carbon and glass are harder than elastomer (e.g. see the disclosed elastomers in paras. [0026], etc. which have known in the art material hardness of less than that of at least one of the fillers).
It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have modified the device of Krapf such that the first filler comprises carbon, the second filler comprises glass, phenolic resin, or PTFE, and the third filler comprises glass, phenolic resin, or PTFE as taught by Park. Such a modification would have provided the expected benefits of providing each of the benefits of the disclosed filler materials to the seal material of Krapf. Additionally see the benefits of each filler described in Park paras. [0036]-[0037], etc..
With regard to claim 20, the combination (Krapf) discloses that the carrier plate is L-shaped (as seen in Figs. 1-3) and at least one elastically deformable sealing lip (5) extends axially from a radially extending section of the carrier plate (as seen in Figs. 1-3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and includes additional examples of similar bearing seals and similar seal materials with various fillers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5354. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/NICHOLAS L FOSTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights