Patent Application 18861212 - Anti-detachment elastic retaining ring capable - Rejection

Patent Application 18861212 - Anti-detachment elastic retaining ring capable

Title: Anti-detachment elastic retaining ring capable of springing back for self-locking and mounting method thereof

Application Information

• Invention Title: Anti-detachment elastic retaining ring capable of springing back for self-locking and mounting method thereof
• Application Number: 18861212
• Submission Date: 2025-05-19T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2024-10-29T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2024-10-29T00:00:00.000Z
• Examiner Employee Number: 89205
• Art Unit: 3726
• Tech Center: 3700

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 6

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0103263🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .

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.


The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.


Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “sheet-like” in line 5. The limitation "-like" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.  See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, “sheet-like” will be interpreted as being generally flat and/or being capable of being made from a sheet.
Claim 1 recites “the inclined guide surface” in line 22, whereas one or two were previously established (i.e. one for each of the first and/or second limiting protrusions). It is thus unclear to which this refers, as it lacks number agreement.
Claim 7 recites “when the retaining ring body is in the original state, the first limiting protrusion and the second limiting protrusion are separated by the preset distance”, where “the preset distance” suggests the same preset distance as in claim 1. Claim 1, in turn, recites “wherein when the first limiting protrusion and the second limiting protrusion are offset from each other by a preset distance in an axial direction, the retaining ring body is in an axially unlocked state”. Thus, as claimed, in both the unlocked state of claim 1 and in the original state of claim 7, the first limiting protrusion and the second limiting protrusion are offset or separated by the same “preset distance”. It is unclear how this is possible, and does not appear possible that the ends could be offset or separated by the same distance in two different states of the ring. Referring to the disclosure (e.g. paragraphs 37-38), it appears as if there are supposed to be two different preset distances. For examination purposes, the limitations in question will be interpreted broadly.
Claim 15 recites a similar limitation as claim 7. Given that claim 10 incorporates and draws antecedence from claim 1, then claim 15 results in a similar issue as claim 7.
The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on at least claim 1.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA  to pre-AIA ) 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.  
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.

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.


Claims 1, 3, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Pedrollo (EP3022445, English equivalent of CN105378285 cited in IDS) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pedrollo in view of Lundsted Poulsen et al. (U.S. PGPub 20210180613).
Claim 1: Pedrollo discloses an anti-detachment elastic retaining ring (4 – Fig. 2) capable of springing back for self-locking (a radially inward resilient bias is implied in paragraph 55 by the “elastic hinge” and the need for “keeping the…elements 40 open” to mount to the seat 5 and “the subsequent resilient hooking of the end portions 42, 43 caus[ing] the locking” – paragraph 55. External retaining rings are also generally understood to have a radially inward bias), comprising a retaining ring body (4/40), wherein the retaining ring body is provided with an opening (evident in Fig. 2); and corresponding to two sides of the opening, two ends of the retaining ring body respectively form a first end and a second end (generally at 42, 43); wherein the retaining ring body in an original state is in a sheet-like shape as a whole (it is generally flat as shown); when the retaining ring body is in the original state, the first end and the second end interlock with each other (the aforementioned hooking of the ends, paragraph 55); corresponding to interlocking front end positions of the first end and the second end, front ends of the first end and the second end are respectively provided with a first connecting extension section and a second connecting extension section (respective narrow portions directly behind the hooks 42/43); the first connecting extension section and the second connecting extension section extend laterally to form a first limiting protrusion and a second limiting protrusion, respectively (hooks 42/43); the first limiting protrusion and the second limiting protrusion are located at an inner side of each other in a circumferential direction of the retaining ring body (they would be when hooked together as is apparent from the design in Fig. 2); adjacent sides of the first limiting protrusion and the second limiting protrusion are provided with locking fitting surfaces (the interlocking/mutually contacting radial surfaces of the hook 42/43); and a side of the first limiting protrusion away from the second limiting protrusion and/or a side of the second limiting protrusion away from the first limiting protrusion is provided with an inclined guide surface (the hooks have angled leading corner surfaces); when the retaining ring body expands outward from a locked (hooked) state, the two locking fitting surfaces are fitted and interlocked with each other (implied at paragraph 55), preventing the retaining ring body from expanding outward to a detached state (the design and description suggests this functionality); and through the inclined guide surface (angled leading corners), the retaining ring body is reset to the locked state from the detached state (detached state shown in Fig. 2) by a rebound force of the retaining ring body (implied in paragraph 55 as discussed above – the hooks would have to mutually ride over each other’s angled corners to achieve the hooked/locked state); wherein when the first limiting protrusion and the second limiting protrusion are offset from each other by a preset distance in an axial direction, the retaining ring body is in an axially unlocked state (e.g. the hooks axially spaced apart as shown in Fig. 2); and the retaining ring body is allowed to reset from the axially unlocked state to the locked state by the rebound force of the retaining ring body (as discussed above).
It is acknowledged that Pedrollo does not explicitly describe the ring as being “capable of springing back for self-locking”, where the ring is in the interlocked state as its “original state”, and is “allowed to reset from the axially unlocked state to the locked state by the rebound force of the retaining ring body”. The above is presumed based on what appears to be implied from Pedrollo as discussed above. However, to any extent that this may be deemed insufficiently clear, Lundsted teaches a similar retaining ring having locking portions at its ends which functions in this manner (e.g. paragraphs 45 and 50 – the ring is shown in Fig. 6 in its original relaxed state and may be opened or unlocked by a tool, for example, to mount to a shaft). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the ring of Pedrollo to function in a similar manner since it allows an easy mounting and dismounting of the locking ring (Id.).
Claim 3: Based on the above, when the retaining ring body of Pedrollo is in the original state, the second connecting extension section would be located at an outer side of the first connecting extension section in a radial direction of the retaining ring body (the connecting extensions would be located radially relative to one another when the ring is locked).
Claim 6: Front ends of the first limiting protrusion and the second limiting protrusion in an extension direction extend towards the inner side of each other in the circumferential direction of the retaining ring body to form a pair of interlocking hooks (42, 43); and the locking fitting surface is located at an inner side of the interlocking hook (evident in Fig. 2).
Claim 9: An end surface of the first end or the second end is provided with a release protrusion (any protruding portion of the ends, such as the sharp corned portions, might be broadly interpreted as a “release protrusion” without additional description. For example, one could push on these protrusions to release the ring).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedrollo (and optionally also Lundsted) in view of Heinrich (U.S. Patent 2,595,787).
Claim 4: Pedrollo discloses, or Pedrollo and Lundsted teach, the anti-detachment elastic retaining ring substantially as claimed, except for disassembly holes, wherein the disassembly holes comprise a first disassembly hole; and the first disassembly hole is provided at the second end. However, Heinrich teaches a retaining ring having disassembly holes (44, 44’), wherein the disassembly holes comprise a first disassembly hole (either one); and the first disassembly hole is provided at the second end (e.g. Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided disassembly holes as claimed in order to have allowed for a tool to help expand the ring during installation (Heinrich - column 6, line 73 – column 7, line 3).
Claim 5: Further referring to Heinrich, the disassembly holes further comprise a second disassembly hole (two are shown); and the second disassembly hole is provided at the first end (one hole at each end).
Claim 9 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedrollo (and optionally also Lundsted) in view of Gutierrez (U.S. PGPub 2007/0103263).
Pedrollo discloses, or Pedrollo and Lundsted teach, the anti-detachment elastic retaining ring substantially as claimed, except for wherein an end surface of the first end or the second end is provided with a release protrusion (i.e. in the sense of a separate protrusion more similar to element 5 of the instant application). However, Gutierrez teaches a retaining ring wherein an end surface of the first end or the second end (13, 14) is provided with a release protrusion (16, 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a release protrusion in order to have allowed the ring to be grasped by hand or by a tool to alter its diameter (paragraph 20).

Claims 10-11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedrollo and Lundsted.
Claim 10: Pedrollo discloses, or Pedrollo and Lundsted teach, a retaining ring according to claim 1 as discussed above. With regard to the mounting method thereof, Pedrollo further discloses step S1: providing the ring in the detached (unlocked) state (“keeping the…elements 40 open”, which suggests actively holding the ends open against the resilient force of the ring – paragraph 55); and generally moving and inserting the ring into a groove (5) of the shaft. The steps of changing the retaining ring body from the original state to the detached state, expanding the retaining ring body until an inner diameter of the retaining ring body is greater than or equal to a diameter of a target mounting shaft, moving the retaining ring body axially to an axial outer side of a groove, and moving the retaining ring body axially into the groove, wherein the retaining ring body is reset from the detached state to the locked state due to the rebound force of the retaining ring body and is clamped into the groove are not explicitly clear.
However, these steps are performed by Lundsted in installing a similar locking retaining ring (paragraphs 45 and 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have installed the ring of Pedrollo in a similar manner since it allows an easy mounting and dismounting of the locking ring (Id.).
Claim 11: When the retaining ring body of Pedrollo is in the original state, the second connecting extension section is located at an outer side of the first connecting extension section in a radial direction of the retaining ring body (the connecting extensions would be located radially relative to one another when the ring is locked).
Claim 14: Front ends of the first limiting protrusion and the second limiting protrusion in an extension direction extend towards the inner side of each other in the circumferential direction of the retaining ring body to form a pair of interlocking hooks (42, 43); and the locking fitting surface is located at an inner side of the interlocking hook (evident in Fig. 2).
Claim 16: An end surface of the first end or the second end is provided with a release protrusion (any protruding portion of the ends, such as the sharp corned portions, might be broadly interpreted as a “release protrusion” without additional description. For example, one could push on these protrusions to release the ring).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedrollo and Lundsted as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Heinrich.
Claim 12: Pedrollo and Lundsted teach a method substantially as claimed, except for disassembly holes, wherein the disassembly holes comprise a first disassembly hole; and the first disassembly hole is provided at the second end. However, Heinrich teaches a retaining ring having disassembly holes (44, 44’), wherein the disassembly holes comprise a first disassembly hole (either one); and the first disassembly hole is provided at the second end (e.g. Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided disassembly holes as claimed in order to have allowed for a tool to help expand the ring during installation (Heinrich - column 6, line 73 – column 7, line 3).
Claim 13: Further referring to Heinrich, the disassembly holes further comprise a second disassembly hole (two are shown); and the second disassembly hole is provided at the first end (one hole at each end).
Claim 16 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedrollo and Lundsted as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Gutierrez.
Pedrollo and Lundsted teach a method substantially as claimed, except for wherein an end surface of the first end or the second end is provided with a release protrusion (i.e. in the sense of a separate protrusion more similar to element 5 of the instant application). However, Gutierrez teaches a retaining ring wherein an end surface of the first end or the second end (13, 14) is provided with a release protrusion (16, 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a release protrusion in order to have allowed the ring to be grasped by hand or by a tool to alter its diameter (paragraph 20).

Allowable Subject Matter
It is noted that claims 7 and 15 are not currently rejected over the prior art. In this sense alone, they would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. However, the claims are not rejected over the art since, as currently written, they appear to be inconsistent with the instant disclosure and appear to describe a physical impossibility. Thus, it is anticipated that in amending the claims to correct this issue, their scope will also change such that their status as “allowable” may also change.

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references generally disclose retaining rings having various locking features at their ends.

Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.





/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726