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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9/30/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and have not been found persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argued that Hettinger (US 10,316,742) fails to disclose that the cutout portion has a straight horizontal shape. After further consideration, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the claim does not specify the size of the small-radius area, the small-radius area can be interpreted as the area identified in Figure I found in the “Claims Rejections - 35 USC § 102” section . Based on this interpretation, the small-radius area does include a straight horizontal shape which was highlighted in Figure I with a dotted line. For this reason Applicant’s argument was not found persuasive.
Regarding claim 9, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that Hettinger fails to disclose all the claimed limitations, specifically that a part of the non-small radius area is not press fit into the groove. Since the claim does not limit the size of the small-radius area, the small-radius area can be restricted to the region identified below in Fig. I. Based on this interpretation, there would be a non-small radius area that is not press-fitted into the groove, since Hettinger (Col. 8, lines 42-44) teaches that the recessed portion of the recessed surface of the housing can serve as a place to drain lubricant. In order for this to be done the plate in that region cannot be entirely pressed onto the surface of the housing. For this reason Applicant’s argument has not been found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hettinger et al. (US 10,316,742; hereinafter Hettinger).
Regarding claim 1, Hettinger (Fig. 1-6) discloses a turbocharger (200) comprising: a shaft (252); a rolling bearing (400) that includes an inner ring (430) mounted on the shaft (252) and an outer ring (410) arranged around the inner ring (430); a housing (310) that includes a bearing hole accommodating the rolling bearing (400) and a side wall (330) intersecting the bearing hole; and a bearing retainer (640) that is attached to the side wall (330) and that faces a side face of the outer ring (410), a lower part of the bearing retainer (640) including a small-radius area, a first distance from a central axis of the shaft (252) to an outer edge of the small-radius area being shorter than a second distance from the central axis to the outer edge of other areas of the bearing retainer (640), the first distance of the small-radius area being greater than a radius of the bearing hole and less than or equal to a third distance from the central axis to an outer edge of an area facing the small-radius area in the side wall, wherein the outer edge of the small-radius area has a horizontal straight shape when seen in an axial direction of the shaft (252). Refer to Fig. I and II below.
PNG
media_image2.png
664
713
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. I. Hettinger, Fig. 6 (Annotated)
PNG
media_image3.png
452
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. II. Hettinger, Fig. 4 (Annotated)
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, 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) 2, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hettinger et al. (US 10,316,742; hereinafter Hettinger) in view of Matsuyama (US 8,794,905).
Regarding claim 2, Hettinger discloses the turbocharger according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that a part of the outer edge of the bearing retainer is press-fitted into the housing, and the small-radius area is formed in an area that is not press-fitted into the housing in the bearing retainer.
Matsuyama (Col. 2, lines 57-) teaches that a seal plate for a turbocharger can be coupled to a housing via a press-fit. By using a press-fit to couple the bearing retainer to the housing, this simplifies installation by reducing the number of parts needed (eliminating the bolts, etc.). Based on this it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hettinger by coupling the bearing retainer to the housing with a press-fit, as taught by Matsuyama, in order to produce the predictable result of simplifying installation by reducing the number of parts needed to install the retainer plate.
Regarding claim 9, Hettinger (Fig. 1-6) discloses a turbocharger (200) comprising: a shaft (282); a rolling bearing (400) that includes an inner ring (430) mounted on the shaft (282) and an outer ring (410) arranged around the inner ring (430); a housing (310) that includes a bearing hole accommodating the rolling bearing (400) and a side wall (330) intersecting the bearing hole; and a bearing retainer (640) that is attached to the side wall (330) and that faces a side face of the outer ring (410), a lower part of the bearing retainer (640) including a small-radius area, a first distance from a central axis of the shaft to an outer edge of the small-radius area being shorter than a second distance from the central axis to the outer edge of other areas of the bearing retainer (640), the first distance of the small-radius area being greater than a radius of the bearing hole and less than or equal to a third distance from the central axis to an outer edge of an area facing the small-radius area in the side wall, wherein the housing (310) further includes: a groove having an arc shape that is greater than 180 degrees (a circle is an arc shape that is greater than 180 degrees) when seen in an axial direction of the shaft (282), and an oil drainage space that is formed below the groove, the bearing retainer (640) further includes a non-small-radius area that is an area other than the small-radius area, and the small-radius area and the rest of the non-small-radius area are exposed to the oil drainage space. Refer to Fig. I-II above and Fig. III below.
PNG
media_image4.png
456
486
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. III. Hettinger, Fig. 4 (Annotated)
Hettinger fails to disclose a part of the non-small-radius area is press-fitted into the groove.
Matsuyama (Col. 2, lines 57-) teaches that a seal plate for a turbocharger can be coupled to a housing via a press-fit. By using a press-fit to couple the bearing retainer to the housing, this simplifies installation by reducing the number of parts needed (eliminating the bolts, etc.). Based on this it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hettinger by coupling the bearing retainer to the housing with a press-fit, as taught by Matsuyama, in order to produce the predictable result of simplifying installation by reducing the number of parts needed to install the retainer plate.
Regarding claim 11, Hettinger, as modified, discloses the turbocharger according to claim 9, wherein Hettinger (Fig. 6), as modified, further discloses that the outer edge of the small-radius area has a horizontal straight shape when seen in an axial direction of the shaft. Refer to Fig. II above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-4, 10, and 12 are 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.
Claims 5-8 are allowed.
Regarding claim 3:
Closest prior art: Hettinger et al. (US 10,316,742)
Hettinger discloses the turbocharger of claim 1.
The closest prior art fails to disclose or suggest that the small-radius area includes a tapered surface of which radius from the central axis decreases from a first end face that faces the side face of the outer ring to a second end face that is positioned on an opposite side to the first end face.
Regarding claim 4:
Closest prior art: Hettinger et al. (US 10,316,742)
Hettinger discloses the turbocharger of claim 1.
The closest prior art fails to disclose or suggest that the bearing retainer further incudes an oil drainage surface, a thickness of the bearing retainer at the oil drainage surface in an axial direction of the shaft is smaller than that of other areas of the bearing retainer, and the outer edge of the small-radius area is positioned within an outer edge of the oil drainage surface.
Regarding claim 5:
Closest prior art: Hettinger et al. (US 10,316,742)
Hettinger discloses a turbocharger comprising: a shaft; a rolling bearing that includes an inner ring mounted on the shaft and an outer ring arranged around the inner ring; a housing that includes a bearing hole accommodating the rolling bearing and a side wall intersecting the bearing hole: and a bearing retainer that is attached to the side wall and that faces a side face of the outer ring, a lower part of the bearing retainer including a small-radius area, a first distance from a central axis of the shaft to an outer edge of the small-radius area being shorter than a second distance from the central axis to the outer edge of other areas of the bearing retainer, the first distance of the small-radius area being greater than a radius of the bearing hole and less than or equal to a third distance from the central axis to an outer edge of an area facing the small-radius area in the side wall.
The closest prior art fails to disclose or suggest that the bearing retainer further includes an oil drainage surface, a thickness of the bearing retainer at the oil drainage surface in an axial direction of the shaft is smaller than that of other areas of the bearing retainer, and the outer edge of the small-radius area is positioned within an outer edge of the oil drainage surface.
Claims 6-8 depend upon claim 5 and so are allowable.
Regarding claim 10:
Closest prior art: Hettinger et al. (US 10,316,742)
Hettinger discloses the turbocharger according to claim 9.
The closest prior art fails to disclose or suggest that the small-radius area includes a tapered surface of which radius from the central axis decreases from a first end face that faces the side face of the outer ring to a second end face that is positioned on an opposite side to the first end face.
Regarding claim 12:
Closest prior art: Hettinger et al. (US 10,316,742)
Hettinger discloses the turbocharger according to claim 9.
The closest prior art fails to disclose or suggest that the bearing retainer further incudes an oil drainage surface, a thickness of the bearing retainer at the oil drainage surface in an axial direction of the shaft is smaller than that of other areas of the bearing retainer, and the outer edge of the small-radius area is positioned within an outer edge of the oil drainage surface.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE M CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3275. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PM.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 571-270-3508. 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.
/DMC/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745