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 30, 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. However, it is further noted that Applicant has recited and submitted a copy of the document on 8/5/26 and thus no additional action is needed.
The IDS includes an NPL citation for an unpublished US application, however no copy is provided and at this point in time the document has been published. The citation has been crossed off the IDS however the US publication has later been cited by Applicant and indicated as considered based on the IDS filed on 8/5/26, no additional action is needed by Applicant.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 2, “radially outwardly” should be - -radially inwardly- - since the seal arrangement is secured to the first ring, or in other words the outer ring as defined in the specification, and the spacer extends radially inward relative to the outer ring as illustrated.
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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Russ, USP 2016/0327097.
Regarding claim 1, Russ discloses a rolling bearing (figure 1) comprising: a first ring (3/39) including at least one first rolling ring (3) provided with a first raceway (one indicated by 12); a second ring (2) including at least one second rolling ring (ring half with 15) provided with a second raceway (15), the first and second rings being capable of rotating concentrically relative to one another (via the rolling elements); at least one row of rolling elements (13) arranged between the first and second raceways of the first and second rings; at least two seals (24/25), each seal having an annular heel (outer surface contacting 39) mounted on a cylindrical surface of the first ring (inner surface of 3/39, specifically part 39) and a sealing lip (29) in frictional contact with the second ring; and at least one spacer ring (26) mounted on the first ring and axially arranged between the annular heels of the at least two seals (see figure 2), the at least one spacer ring including at least three separate segments circumferentially adjacent and forming the spacer ring (see paragraph 0065 disclosing that 26 can be made of two halves, a split ring or a plurality of ring segments, or in other words 1, 2 or 3 or more pieces).
Regarding claim 10, the recitation of the claim is defining how the segments of the spacer ring are made, this is a product by process recitation that does not limit the claim to any particular structure, see MPEP 2113.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russ, USP 2016/0327097, in view of Schroppel, USP 9,334,901.
Regarding claim 2, Russ does not disclose that the at least one spacer ring includes an annular groove facing the cylindrical surface of the first ring.
Schroppel teaches a similar stacked seal arrangement wherein a spacer ring (52) provided between the two seal elements (22) includes an annular groove (55) facing the cylindrical surface of the first ring (surface at 26) for the purpose of providing a lubrication delivery system for the purpose of establishing a counterpressure to reduce the risk of foreign matter from infiltrating the bearing (see column 10, lines 39-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Russ and use a spacer with an annular groove as part of a lubrication system, as taught by Schroppel, for the purpose of providing a lubrication delivery system for the purpose of establishing a counterpressure to reduce the risk of foreign matter from infiltrating the bearing.
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russ, USP 2016/0327097, in view of Capoldi, USP 11,486,444.
Regarding claim 3, Russ does not disclose that the at least one spacer ring includes a flange projecting radially outwardly [inwardly] toward the second ring, the flange extending obliquely with a support surface inclined in the same direction as the sealing lip of one of the at least two seals, and an annular axial collar configured to radially block an annular heel of the other one of the at least two seals so as to prevent the seal from displacing in a radially outward direction.
Capoldi teaches a similar stacked seal arrangement and spacer combination wherein the at least one spacer ring (30/32) includes a flange projecting radially outwardly [inwardly] toward the second ring (portion of the ring that includes 30a and 30b), the flange extending obliquely with a support surface inclined in the same direction as the sealing lip of one of the at least two seals (30a extends in generally the same direction as the lips of the seal elements), and an annular axial collar configured to radially block an annular heel of the other one of the at least two seals so as to prevent the seal from displacing in a radially outward direction (30b is the collar that holds the heel 27a of the adjacent seal) for the purpose of preventing reversing of the sealing lip (purpose of 30a) and to block radially inward movement of the seal element (purpose of 30b, see column 7, lines 39-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Russ and use a spacer and/or spacer seal combination that includes the at least one spacer ring having a flange projecting radially outwardly [inwardly] toward the second ring, the flange extending obliquely with a support surface inclined in the same direction as the sealing lip of one of the at least two seals, and an annular axial collar configured to radially block an annular heel of the other one of the at least two seals so as to prevent the seal from displacing in a radially outward direction, as taught by Capoldi, for the purpose of preventing reversing of the sealing lip and to block radially inward movement of the seal element.
Regarding claim 9, Russ, while disclosing two seals and a spacer, does not disclose that there are at least three seals and two spacer rings spaced apart from each other such that one of the at least three seals is interposed axially between the two spacer rings.
Capoldi teaches a similar bearing where multiple seals, including three (26, 27 and 28), are stacked with spacer elements therebetween, specifically two (30 and 32), such that at least one of the seals is interposed between the two spacer rings (see figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Russ and add an additional seal and spacer to define a stack of three seals and two spacers, as taught by Capoldi, since extending the length of the stack of seals and spacers provides the predictable result of increasing the number of sealing points thus increasing the sealing capacity of the seal as a whole. Furthermore, the modification to Russ can be viewed as duplication essential parts of the device which has been found to only require routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 and In re Hara, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russ, USP 2016/0327097.
Regarding claim 4, Russ, while disclosing the use of a plurality of pieces to make the spacer, is silent as to how the part is specifically segmented and thus does not disclose that each segment of the at least one spacer ring is sized the same as each other segment of the at least one spacer ring.
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Russ and make the seal out of equally sized segments as a matter of obvious design choice, since Applicant has not disclosed that the size of the particular segments relative to each other solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless of the relative lengths of each segment. Ultimately making the pieces the same or different sizes is a matter of selecting a particular size of the segment and the combination of relative sizing, specifically all the pieces being equal, is selecting a feature of the spacer from a finite set of possibilities of the parts all being equal, two being equal and one different or all three being different, regardless of how the part is segmented the part is ultimately assembled into the final product to define the annular spacer. How the annular spacer is sub-divided does not alter the function of the spacer itself and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to try all the possible combination of relative sizing at the time of effective filing.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 6 of copending Application No. 19/194179 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented (note claims indicated allowable in this application in the notice of allowance dated June 24, 2026).
The independent claims differ from each other in the last clause, however the different limitations then appear in dependent claims in both applications and thus the combination presented by the combination of claims 1 and 5 in the instant application is identical to the combination presented in claims 1 and 6 in the copending application.
Similarly claims 6 and 7 of the instant application are duplicate of claims 7 and 8 of the copending application as they depend from claims 5 or 6, respectively, and are thus also defining the same combination of features and therefore are also provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
NOTE: Claim 8 is similar to claim 3 of the copending application, however because of the different claim dependency currently presented is not subject a double patenting objection/rejection, however this may become an issue later based on the inclusion of the allowable subject matter below into the independent claim and how the double patenting rejection above is addressed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the claimed combination of claims 1 and 5 (however claim 5 is rejected in view of double patenting, see above) wherein each segment, which as required by claim 1 is part of a spacer that is arranged inside the first ring as a separate member, of the spacer includes at least one axial through hole opening on axial ends of the spacer and onto at least two seals (the openings of the axial through opening face the seals) and wherein the at least one axial through hole includes a thread.
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