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 IDS lists US patent applications as NPL documents, these documents have not been provided but have now been published. The citations have been crossed off the IDS and the corresponding publications cited on the attached PTO-892, no additional action is needed by Applicant regarding this issue.
Drawings
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 motor, shaft and housing as required by claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Currently the drawings depict a standalone bearing, no larger device of a motor is illustrated.
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.
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) 1-5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnault, US PGPub 2023/0220881, in view of Arnault, US PGPub 2023/0220882 (Arnault882).
Regarding claim 1, Arnault discloses a bearing device comprising: a bearing including a first ring (12) and a second ring (14) configured to rotate relative to each other, the second ring (14) having a first cylindrical surface and a second cylindrical surface (surfaces 14a and 14b) radially spaced from the first cylindrical surface (14a and 14b are radially spaced apart surfaces), a bushing having an axial length (24) and a first cylindrical surface and a second cylindrical surface radially spaced from the first cylindrical surface of the bushing (surfaces 24a and 24b), and an electrically insulating insert (26) overmolded (see paragraph 0032) between and connecting the first cylindrical surface (24b) of the bushing and the second cylindrical surface (14a) of the second ring (14), wherein an axially facing end (24d) of the bushing includes at least one slot (34) delimited in a circumferential direction by two lateral flanks (see figure 3), the at least one slot (34) of the bushing extending from the first cylindrical surface of the bushing to the second cylindrical surface of the bushing (extends from 24a to 24b) and a first protruding part (30, see paragraph 0055) of the electrically insulating insert extends into the at least one slot of the bushing.
Arnault is only concerned with a connecting between the bushing and the insulating layer and thus does not further discloses that an axially facing end of the second ring includes at least one slot delimited in a circumferential direction by two lateral flanks, the at least one slot of the second ring extending into the second ring from the second cylindrical surface of the second ring and a second protruding part of the electrically insulating insert extends into the at least one slot of the second ring.
Arnault882 teaches that an axially facing end (14d) of a second ring (14) includes at least one slot (30) delimited in a circumferential direction by two lateral flanks (see figure 2), the at least one slot of the second ring extending into the second ring from the second cylindrical surface (14a) of the second ring (14) and a second protruding part (34) of the electrically insulating insert (26) extends into the at least one slot of the second ring for the purpose of rigidly securing the insulating liner with the bearing ring (see paragraph 0011).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Arnault and add an additional slot with two lateral flanks and corresponding protrusion on the outer/second ring of the bearing assembly, as taught by Arnault882, for the purpose of rigidly securing the insulating liner with the bearing ring. Providing a bearing with slots on both members that the insulating liner is overmolded with provides the benefit and predictable result of improving the overall connection between the three components in a manner that would prevent relative movement between the parts even if the bond achieved by overmolding fails, in other words using slots and protrusions on both members, the bearing ring and the bushing, improves the holding force between all three parts rather just on one half of the assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Arnault discloses that the lateral flanks (left and right side of 34) of the at least one slot (34) of the bushing (24) face one another in the circumferential direction (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Arnault in view of Arnault882 discloses that the at least one slot of the bushing comprises a first slot of the bushing and a second slot of the bushing (Arnault discloses that the bushing 24 includes multiple slots 34 in addition to slots 32 on the other side of the assembly), and wherein the at least one slot of the second ring comprises a first slot of the second ring and a second slot of the second ring (the slots in the second ring as taught by Arnault882 also includes multiple slots 30 as well as additional slots 28 on the other side of the ring).
Regarding claim 4, Arnault in view of Arnault882 discloses that the first slot of the bushing and the second slot of the bushing are diametrically opposed (Arnault discloses multiple slots 34 which can be viewed as being arranged in diametrically opposed pairs, see for example the upper most 34 and the lower most 34 shown in figure 3), and wherein the first slot of the second ring and the second slot of the second ring are diametrically opposed (Arnault882 further shows that the slots can be in pairs that are diametrically opposed, see for example the upper most 30 in figure 2 and the lower most 30).
Regarding claim 5, the combination above, while rendering obvious the use of slots on both the bushing and the second ring, does not specifically address any corresponding positioning or alignment of the slots and therefore does not disclose that the at least one slot of the bushing is radially aligned with the at least one slot of the second ring.
However, the relative positioning of the slots, specifically the slots being aligned, is a matter of selecting one option out of a finite number of predictable solutions. Either the slots can align or they are offset, however regardless of which configuration is used the slots ultimately accept a portion of the overmolded material and act to couple the parts together. Regardless of the slots being aligned or offset the specific arrangement would have been an obvious matter of selecting a configuration within a finite number of predictable solutions, all of which ultimately perform the same function and do not specifically influence the overall function of the bearing. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to radially align the slots as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options or matters of obvious design choice within his or her technical grasp and the positioning of the slots does not change the overall function.
Regarding claim 7, Arnault discloses an electric motor (see background) comprising: a housing, a shaft (the housing and shaft are referenced in at least paragraph 0003), and at least one bearing device according to claim 1 mounted radially between the housing and the shaft (the bearing supports the shaft rotor in the machine or motor housing).
Regarding claim 8, Arnault in view of Arnault882 discloses a method for manufacturing the bearing device according to claim 1, comprising: machining the at least one slot in the bushing (34 in Arnault is disclosed as being a cut feature in paragraph 0051, “machining” is not a specific process and thus “cutting” would anticipate this limitation), machining the at least one slot in the second ring (the other slots taught by Arnault882 are also machined, see paragraph 0038), mounting the bushing and the second ring inside a manufacturing mold (see paragraph 0046 of Arnault), and overmolding the insulating insert on the bushing and the second ring and in the at least one slot of the bushing and in the at least one slot of the second ring (see paragraph 0047 of Arnault).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record, while showing slots, does not disclose that the at least one slot of the second ring extends from the second cylindrical surface of the second ring to the first cylindrical surface of the second ring and absent any clear teaching in the prior art such a modification to the rejection above would be a matter of impermissible hindsight reconstruction of Applicant’s invention.
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