DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is CHRISTOPHER.LEGENDRE@USPTO.GOV.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 25 June 2026 with respect to the drawings have been fully considered and are deemed to overcome the previous objection(s).
Applicant’s amendments filed 25 June 2026 with respect to the claims have been fully considered. Any claim objections and/or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections not repeated herein are considered to be overcome by the amendments.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 25 June 2026 stating that the amendments to the claims overcome the previous prior art rejections have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Accordingly, the previous prior art rejections are withdrawn. However, new 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections necessitated by these amendments are set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, “is sleeved on” should be changed to --surrounding-- (to improve the clarity of the claim) and “is” should be deleted (in response to the previous change).
In claim 12, line 10, the space after “cavity” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “a touchdown bearing sleeved on said motor shaft” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure indicates that touchdown bearing 110 is radially offset from, not “sleeved on”, motor shaft 100. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-13.
In claim 1, the combination of limitations recited as “a seal [is] sleeved on an outer side of said motor shaft…, wherein there is a first radial clearance between said seal and said motor shaft, said first radial clearance is greater than a second radial clearance between said touchdown bearing and said spacer on said motor shaft; a first magnet, said first magnet is fixed at an outer surface of said motor shaft; and a second magnet, said second magnet is fixed at a side of said seal facing said motor shaft” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure describes a magnetic bearing clearance 542 (i.e., the claimed “first radial clearance”) and a touchdown bearing clearance 540 (i.e., the claimed “second radial clearance”), wherein the magnetic bearing clearance 542 is defined between (see Figure 6 and par. [0037]) radial magnetic bearing stator 521 (which corresponds with the claimed “second magnet”) and radial magnetic bearing rotor 523 (which corresponds with the claimed “first magnet”), not between “seal” and “motor shaft” - i.e., since:
(1) the claim recites “a first magnet, said first magnet is fixed at an outer surface of said motor shaft”, then the claimed “first magnet” corresponds with the disclosed radial magnetic bearing rotor 523 (and cannot correspond with the claimed “seal” or “motor shaft”), thereby rendering the claimed “first radial clearance” incorrectly defined and, thus, rendering the claimed condition as not supported by the disclosure, and/or
(2) the claim recites “a second magnet, said second magnet is fixed at a side of said seal facing said motor shaft”, then the claimed “second magnet” corresponds with the disclosed radial magnetic bearing stator 521 (and cannot correspond with the claimed “seal” or “motor shaft”), thereby rendering the claimed “second radial clearance” incorrectly defined and, thus, rendering the claimed condition as not supported by the disclosure.
Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-13.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “a second radial clearance between said touchdown bearing and said spacer on said motor shaft” in combination with the antecedent limitation “a touchdown bearing sleeved on said motor shaft” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure does not provide support for both of these limitations since, in the case of a spacer 111 being present between touchdown bearing 110 and shaft 100 as in Figure 6, touchdown bearing 110 is not sleeved on motor shaft 100 in any sense (note: spacer 111 is disclosed and claimed as separate/distinct from motor shaft 100 and interposing touchdown bearing 110 and motor shaft 100). Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-13.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “a second radial clearance between said touchdown bearing and said spacer on said motor shaft” renders the claim indefinite since it is contradictory to the antecedent limitation “a touchdown bearing sleeved on said motor shaft” - i.e., since “spacer” interposes “touchdown bearing” and “motor shaft”, then “touchdown bearing” cannot be “sleeved on said motor shaft”. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-13.
Examiner’s Comment
Although claims 1-13 are not rejected over prior art, patentability cannot be determined in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 issues described above.
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone is (571)270-3364 and email is christopher.legendre@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights