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 .
Summary
Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are pending. Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are rejected herein. This is a Final Rejection after the arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 26 Feb 2026.
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) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of CAO (CN 105675300 A) in view of TAGUCHI (US 2016/0033362). Please note that a machine translation of CAO was included with the office action dated 20 June 2024. All references to text in CAO are to that machine translation.
Regarding claims 1 and 3: CAO discloses: A method for inducing flaking caused by hydrogen embrittlement (Since CAO discloses all of the following limitations it can be used as “a method for inducing hydrogen embrittlement”.), the method comprising: preparing a rolling bearing (FIG. 5) having a first bearing ring (above the ball indicated at 29), a second bearing ring (below the ball indicated at 29), and a rolling element (29), the first bearing ring being a rotation ring (It will turn with transmission shaft 37 in FIG. 6) including a first raceway surface (the side of the first bearing ring facing the ball 29), the second bearing ring being a stationary ring (stationary as the transmission shaft 37 turns the inside of the structure) including a second raceway surface (side of second bearing ring that faces the ball 29) facing the first raceway surface (FIG. 5), the rolling element being disposed between the first raceway surface and the second raceway surface (FIG. 5); and applying a rotation about a central axis (rotation supplied by motor 34 in FIG. 6) onto the first bearing ring in a state in which a load is applied between the first raceway surface and the second raceway surface through the rolling element (“radial load” on page 4 last two para.) until flaking is caused in the first raceway surface by hydrogen embrittlement (This is a statement of a result. If CAO discloses the necessary steps of the method steps of claim 1, then it will result in hydrogen embrittlement.), the first raceway surface and the second raceway surface are always entirely immersed in lubricating oil (page 2 second to last para.) during the rotation, and a content of the water in the lubricating oil is less than or equal to 200 mass ppm (No water is specified therefore one assumes zero water content.).
CAO does not disclose that the bearing components are made of a high-carbon chromium bearing steel specified in JIS G 4805: 2008, however this document is a reference from 2008 for specifying the elemental content of different bearing steels. Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to test any known bearing made of any known bearing steel composition.
CAO discloses a temperature sensor (5 in FIG. 1), but does not specify the operating temperature.
TAGUCHI however does specify a temperature of 100 degrees C (para. 28, 34-39) in their bearing testing invention (abstract). TAGUCHI also teaches the load is applied from a lower side in a vertical direction toward an upper side in the vertical direction (As shown in FIG. 7, the load can be applied from above or below. Para. 4), thus meeting the limitations of claim 3.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use relatively high temperature such as 100 degrees C because bearings often have to operate in high temperature environments.
Regarding claim 2: CAO discloses: the rolling bearing is a radial ball bearing (FIG. 5), the central axis is along a horizontal direction (FIG. 5), and the load is applied along a direction orthogonal to the central axis (“radial load” on page 4 last two para.).
Regarding claim 7: CAO discloses: a hydrogen concentration in the steel is less than or equal to 0.02 mass ppm (No hydrogen level is specified therefore one assumes that the bearings start with zero hydrogen concentration.).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAO and TAGUCHI in view of MATSUBARA (US 20140007657).
Regarding claim 4: CAO discloses axial loads (“radial load” on page 4 last two para.), but does not disclose the geometry of a thrust bearing being tested with the central axis vertically disposed.
MATSUBARA however teaches that the rolling bearing is a thrust ball bearing (para. 152; FIG. 8), the central axis is along a vertical direction (FIG. 8), and the load is applied along the vertical direction (FIG. 8), in his bearing testing machine that uses an oil immersion bath (FIG. 8).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to test bearings vertically as taught by MATSUBARA (FIG. 8) or horizontally as taught by MATSUBARA (FIG. 13) and CAO (FIG. 5) so that the bearing can be tested in whatever orientation most closely matches its end-use configuration.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAO and TAGUCHI in view of UMEDA et al. (EP 1748371).
Regarding claim 6: CAO does not disclose that the lubricating oil is a CVT (Continuously Variable Transmission) fluid.
UMEDA however does teach one of the many devices that have rolling contacts subject to damage by flaking is a continuously variable transmission or CVT (para. 135).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use CVT fluid as the lubricating oil in the tests of CAO to evaluate its properties, to prevent this kind of damage happening at the rolling contacts of a CVT (para. 135 of UMEDA).
Response to Amendment/Argument
The Applicant has argued (page 5 of the Response) that CAO cannot be relied upon to teach the limitation of “the first raceway surface and the second raceway surface are always entirely immersed in the lubricating oil.” This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. The term “immerse” used throughout CAO is given its plain dictionary definition which is “to plunge into something that surrounds or covers” (retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immersed on 07 March 2026). Therefore if the bearing is covered it meets the limitation of “the first raceway surface and the second raceway surface are always entirely immersed in the lubricating oil.”
The Applicant has argued (page 5 of the Response) that it is well-known in the bearing industry that an oil bath for a horizontal shaft results in only partial immersion at best, therefore the word “immersed” in CAO cannot be relied upon to disclose “the first raceway surface and the second raceway surface are always entirely immersed in the lubricating oil” as recited in claim 1. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Although the Applicant has given counter examples where a bearing for a horizontal shaft is not completely immersed, the Examiner still gives the language of CAO its plain meaning. Furthermore, the Applicant is direct to consider the horizontal shaft of WOLFRAM (DE 102023130844) which teaches different types of lubrication schemes including “the bearing device is immersed in an oil bath” (bottom of page 3). This is considered synonymous with “the bearing device being completely immersed in oil” (bottom of page 5). Please note that WOLFRAM is not submitted as prior art, but only as an example of how the term “immersed” is used in the lubrication arts.
The Applicant has argued (page 6 of the Response) that even if CAO disclosed full immersion, CAO cannot be combined with TAGUCHI because TAGUCHI expressly identifies full immersion as a problem. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. TAGUCHI has only been relied upon to teach an operating temperature of 100 degrees C. This teaching and its reasoning has nothing to do with the question of full versus partial immersion.
The Applicant has argued (page 7 of the Response) that, because CAO discloses a monitoring system to automatically stop the test when the temperature value reaches a threshold, one could not use the temperature of 100 degrees as taught by TAGUCHI. This argument has been fully considered and is moot. CAO does not specify any operating temperature. Therefore there is no reason to arbitrarily assume that an automatic temperature cutoff would have to be below 100 degrees C. CAO does not teach a different range from TAGUCHI. Rather, CAO is completely silent as to any particular operating temperatures. Please note that a typical car engine (a device which has many bearings) can operate at temperatures above 100 degrees C.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2896