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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 29, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because “430” in figure 5 is said to be showing an inlet/nozzle however no such feature is being pointed to by the reference character, the reference character appears to be indicating the shaft element, where is the inlet or nozzle in figure 5.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the channels being substantially tangential to the rotating bearing (clm 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. All the channels pass through a respective bearing element, a channel that passes through an object is not tangential to it.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0050 states “frame lumen 122” includes the oil inlet 430, however 122 is previously referenced as the “bearing lumen 122” in paragraph 0049. The static frame is 410 in this embodiment and 112 is the frame lumen, paragraph 0050 should be amended accordingly. However, this might be causing some of the issue with 430 not indicating an inlet/nozzle in the drawing object above. The description of figure 5 is reversing the configuration of the bearing making the inner element the frame verse the outer element being the frame in the first embodiment. If this is indeed reversed where is the actual inlet into the system?
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-6 and 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berthold, CH686093.
Regarding claim 1, Berthold discloses an oil bearing comprising: a static frame (10) comprising: a frame wall defining a frame lumen (hole holding 12) extending in a longitudinal direction; and a plurality of frame oil channels (16) extending through the frame wall, each of the plurality of frame oil channels arranged at a first angle relative to a radial direction, wherein the first angle is between 45 degrees and 90 degrees (figures 2 and 3 illustrate angled inlets that extend at 90 degrees relative the radial directions of the of bearing, however these angles can be different depending on where the radial is drawn, a radial at 45 degrees in figure 3 would define an angle of approximately 45 degrees with 16, because the claim does not define a specific radial direction orientation the claim is overly broad an as long as one radial can be drawn that defines an angle with the channels that is in the claimed range the claim will be rejectable); and a rotating bearing (12) rotatable in a rotational direction and coaxial with the static frame (10).
Regarding claim 2, Berthold discloses that the plurality of frame oil channels are angled in the rotational direction (angled in a rotational direction does not limit the angle to being in any particular orientation or direction, however in figure 2 Berthold illustrates how each segment of the bearing rotates, the channels 16 are angled in one of these rotational directions).
Regarding claim 3, Berthold discloses that the plurality of frame oil channels are angled substantially tangential to the rotating bearing (while extending through the bearing like in the instant application the channels extend in a direction that can be considered a substantially tangential direction relative to either the sides or top or bottom of the bearing, for example 16, the only labeled passage in figure 2, is horizontal, this is tangential to the top of the bearing).
Regarding claim 4, Berthold discloses a bearing wall (12 is a wall) defining a bearing lumen (hole in 12 holding 11) extending in the longitudinal direction therethrough; and a plurality of bearing oil channels (13) extending through the bearing wall, each of the plurality of bearing oil channels arranged at a second angle relative to the radial direction (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Berthold discloses that the plurality of bearing oil channels are angled in the rotational direction (angled in the direction in which 11 rotates as indicated in figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Berthold discloses that the plurality of bearing oil channels are angled in an opposing direction to the plurality of frame oil channels (16 and 13 extend in opposite direction when viewed from the radially outer side toward the radially inner side).
Regarding claim 8, Berthold discloses a plurality of oil inlets, each of the plurality of oil inlets aligned with one of the plurality of frame oil channels (“inlet” does not limit the claim to any particular structure, the inlet can simply be the opening of the channel 16 on the radially outer surface of the outer member, alternatively the feed channel at 19 can be considered an inlet).
Regarding claim 9, Berthold discloses that the plurality of oil inlets are arranged at an inlet angle (“arranged at an inlet angle” does not define or limit the claim to any particular angle, in a radial bearing all features are at some angle relative to center of the bearing in the range of 0-360 degrees, because of the is the claim is overly broad and covers an direction of inlet).
Regarding claim 10, Berthold discloses that the first angle is between 75 degrees and 90 degrees (as explained above the angle can be viewed as 90 degrees, however again this is ultimately dependent on how the radial is actual positioned as this would change the angle, all radials drawn close to the vertical will define a larger angle with 16, as the radial is drawn closer to the horizontal the angle will approach zero, as the claim does not specify a particular radial in the annular system any inclined inlet would meet the limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 11, Berthold discloses an oil bearing comprising: a static frame (10) comprising: a frame wall defining a frame lumen (hole holding 12) extending in a longitudinal direction; and a plurality of frame oil channels (16) extending through the wall, each of the plurality of frame oil channels arranged at a first angle relative to a radial direction; and a rotating bearing (112) rotatable in a rotational direction and provided within the frame lumen of the static frame, the rotating bearing comprising: a bearing wall (wall forming 112) defining a bearing lumen (hole holding 11) extending in the longitudinal direction; and a plurality of bearing oil channels (13).
Regarding claim 12, Berthold discloses that the first angle is between 45 degrees and 90 degrees (figures 2 and 3 illustrate angled inlets that extend at 90 degrees relative the radial directions of the of bearing, however these angles can be different depending on where the radial is drawn, a radial at 45 degrees in figure 3 would define an angle of approximately 45 degrees with 16, because the claim does not define a specific radial direction orientation the claim is overly broad and as long as one radial can be drawn that defines an angle with the channels that is in the claimed range the claim will be rejectable).
Regarding claim 13, Berthold discloses that each of the plurality of bearing oil channels are arranged at a second angle relative to the radial direction (13 is angled at a second different angle relative to 16).
Regarding claim 14, Berthold discloses that the second angle is between 45 degrees and 90 degrees (again depending on the datum point for the angle the angle of bearing oil channels will very and by not defining a specific reference point the claim is overly broad, in the case of 13 as labeled in figure 2 the angle is closer to 90 degrees relative to the horizontal).
Regarding claim 15, Berthold discloses that the plurality of bearing oil channels and the plurality of frame oil channels are each angled in the rotational direction (again “angled in the rotational direction” does not define a particular inclination and the device of Berthold includes multiple different directions of rotation, similar to the floating arrangement of the instant application where the parts can rotate independently, each channel is ultimately angled in the direction of rotation depending on which rotational element is used as the reference point).
Regarding claim 16, Berthold discloses that the plurality of frame oil channels are evenly distributed about an outer perimeter of the frame wall (see 16 in figure 2).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthold, CH686093 in view of Sack, DE3024629.
Regarding claim 7, Berthold discloses that the static frame is on the outside of the assembly and thus does not disclose that the static frame is assembled within the bearing lumen of the rotating bearing.
Sack teaches that it was known prior to the filing by Applicant to provide a similar bearing with a reversed configuration wherein the static frame member (20) is within the bearing assembly (1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Berthold and reverse the configuration so that the static frame is within the bearing lumen, as taught by Sack, since reversing the configuration into another known configuration where the inner element is the static element instead of the rotating element provides the same predictably result of rotatably supporting one element relative to another. Ultimately in any bearing configuration one element is held static while the other rotates, in some cases the shaft is the rotating element while in other cases the shaft forms a fixed element and what is around the shaft rotates, as is the case in Sack. Claiming what component actually rotates does not provide a structural limitation and distinguishing feature over the prior art of record.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthold, CH686093 in view of Kleinschmidt, US PGPub 20160010500.
Regarding claim 17, Berthold discloses an oil bearing comprising: a static frame (10) comprising: a frame wall defining a frame lumen (hole holding 12) extending in a longitudinal direction; and a plurality of frame oil channels (16) extending through the frame wall, at least some of the plurality of frame oil channels arranged at a first angle relative to a radial direction, and a rotating bearing (12) rotatable in a rotational direction and provided within the static frame lumen (within the hole), the rotating bearing comprising: a bearing wall (12 is the a wall element) defining a bearing lumen extending in the longitudinal direction (shaft hole) and a plurality of bearing oil channels (13).
Berthold, while disclosing inlets or channels, does not disclose that a plurality of nozzles are aligned with the plurality of frame oil channels and configured to permit oil to flow through the plurality of frame oil channels and into the frame lumen.
Kleinschmidt teaches that in a similar bearing the inlets of the working fluid can be tapered forming a nozzle (13) that is aligned within the frame channel (9) and configured to permit oil to flow into the assembly for the purpose of accelerating the oil stream into the bearing (paragraph 0027, in other words the nozzle increases the velocity of the oil to aid in the bearing operation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Berthold and configure the channels within nozzles, as taught by Kleinschmidt, for the purpose of accelerating the oil stream into the bearing.
Claim(s) 18, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthold, CH686093 in view of Kleinschmidt, US PGPub 20160010500, as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Slocum, USP 5,281,032.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Berthold does not disclose that the plurality of frame oil channels comprises a first set of channels and a second set of channels, the first set of channels arranged at the first angle, and the second set of channels arranged at a second angle relative to the radial direction (clm 18) and that the first set of channels are angled in a clockwise direction and the second set of channels are angled in a counterclockwise direction (clm 19).
Slocum teaches a similar bearing assembly wherein two sets of channels (69a’-69d’ and 69a’’-69d’’), the first set being at a first angle (69a’-69d’) and the second set arranged at a second angle (69a’’-69d’’) relative to the radial direction and the first set is angled in a clockwise direction (when viewed from inside in the radial direction to the outside of the bearing) and the second set are angled in a counterclockwise direction (when viewed from inside in the radial direction to the outside, however if the intent is from the angle to be viewed from outside to inside of the bearing the sets can be reversed) for the purpose of providing a bidirectional bearing arrangement that allows the bearing to be supported in rotation in both directions (see column 8, lines 1-17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Berthold and use two sets of channels, angled in opposite directions so that one set extends in a clockwise direction and the other in a counter clockwise direction, as taught by Slocum, for the purpose of providing a bidirectional bearing arrangement that allows the bearing to be supported in rotation in both directions.
Regarding claim 20, as the result of providing the channels with nozzles as taught by Kleinschmidt and the providing a channel arrangement that permits bidirectional rotational support as taught by Slocum, the combination results in multiple channels provided with nozzles and each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles is aligned with one channel of the first set of channels and one channel of the second set of channels as each channel would be provided within nozzle in the combination above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES PILKINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-5052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7-3.
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.
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights