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 .
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) 10-17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter, USP 2,626,841, in view of Navarro, EP2905445.
Regarding claim 10, Potter discloses a method for manufacturing a spherical bearing comprising: positioning an outer ring (F, in the form of blank K) on an inner ring (A, see figure 4), the outer and inner rings respectively comprising an inner surface and an outer surface that are in contact with one another (see figure 4 showing the initial arrangement prior to the actual swaging step); and swaging the outer ring onto the inner ring (pressing of the dies N and O), the outer surface (D) of the inner ring (A) being used as the die which imparts its shape to the inner surface of the outer ring (A is place within the cavity of dies N and O to function as an inner die).
Potter does not disclose that the material of the outer ring comprises an alloy having the formula NiCr19Fe18Nb or an alloy having the formula X6NiCrTiMoVB25-15-2.
Navarro teaches that the outer ring of a spherical bearing can be made of an alloy having the formula NiCr19Fe18Nb or an alloy having the formula X6NiCrTiMoVB25-15-2 (based on the disclosure of the instant application NiCr19Fe18Nb is also known as Inconel® 718 and X6NiCrTiMoVB25-15-2 is also known as A286, these are the same materials listed as possible materials for the outer ring 214 in Navarro, see paragraph 0023).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Potter and make the outer ring out of any previously known bearing material, including a material having the formula NiCr19Fe18Nb or X6NiCrTiMoVB25-15-2, as taught by Navarro, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, Potter discloses that the outer surface (D) of the inner ring is convex spherical so as to form a concave spherical inner surface (H) for the outer ring during the swaging step.
Regarding claim 12, Potter discloses that through at least one radial section of the inner ring, the inner ring including the outer surface of the inner ring is formed from a same material (Potter discloses the inner ring as one homogenous body), wherein the inner surface of the outer ring is formed from the alloy (Navarro is teaching using the same alloy claimed in order to make the outer ring in the device of Potter), and wherein the inner surface of the outer ring is in direct contact with the outer surface of the inner ring (in Potter the two rings directly contact, Applicant has appeared to add this new claim/claim limitation to overcome the Applicant of Navarro however the lubricant material is not being taught by Navarro only the fact the material was a known bearing material is what is being taught from Navarro into the device of Potter, it is further noted that this recitation cannot be interpreted as excluding any form of a lubricant as a lubricant is specifically recited later in the claims, Navarro is illustrating the lubricant at 224 and states that this can be a grease or a liner, grease being a lubricant just like that recited later in the claim thus, even if required Navarro would still disclose “direct contact” with the presence of a lubricant).
Regarding claim 13, Potter discloses that after the swaging step, a step of machining an outer surface and/or lateral faces of the swaged outer ring (as shown in figures 5 and 6, after coming out of the die the assembly is worked or machined to make the curved outer surface flat, see also column 3, line 53-column 4, line 9 discussing final shaping and trimming of the outer ring element).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Potter discloses that after the swaging step, a step of lubricating the inner surface of the outer ring and the outer surface of the inner ring (the outer ring includes feed duct J to apply lubricant to the finished product, thus at any point after swaging lubricant can be applied to the surfaces).
Regarding claim 16, while disclosing applying a lubricant through passage J, Potter does not disclose any specific type of lubricant and thus does not disclose that the lubricant comprising molybdenum disulphide or graphite.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Potter and use any known lubricant including molybdenum disulphide or graphite, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 17, Potter discloses that prior to positioning, a step of manufacturing the outer ring and inner ring (inner ring A is first produced and positioned in the die, outer ring blank K is also first produced and then placed around A within the die).
Regarding claim 21, Potter in view of Navarro discloses that the alloy has the formula NiCr19Fe18Nb, also known as Inconel® 718 (see Navarro paragraph 0023).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter, USP 2,626,841, in view of Navarro, EP2905445, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Patterson, USP 3,371,398.
Potter does not disclose that the outer ring extends an equal axial distance as the inner ring (equal in length).
Patterson discloses that, prior to the filing by Applicant, that an inner ring and an outer ring of a spherical bearing arrangement can be swaged and have a common axial length (see figure 1, elements 10 and 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Potter and configure the two rings of the bearing to have the same length, as taught by Patterson, for the predictable result of limiting the overall length of the bearing by preventing unnecessary protrusion of the inner ring from the outer ring. Furthermore, there is no criticality in the disclosure the relative lengths of the parts, regardless if the parts are different lengths or the same the bearing performs the same function and thus the required modification to Potter is simply a mere change in size of a component (extending the outer ring or reducing the length of the inner ring). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and in this case the relative size of the two parts has no bearing on the general functionality of the spherical bearing. Ultimately as a result of the combination the additional step of swaging or making the rings the same length is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter, USP 2,626,841, in view of Navarro, EP2905445, as applied to claims 11 and 12, and further in view of Teeple, USP 2,947,063.
Potter further discloses that the pressing process produces a plastically deformed outer ring, however, while showing a die pressing process which is a cold working process, Potter does not explicitly state that the swaging is carried out cold or in other words at a temperature below a recrystallization temperature of the outer ring.
Teeple disclose the same die pressing process but explicitly states that this is a cold working process (see column 3, lines 4-19) which is specifically done cold to avoid the negative impact from uneven heating (see column 1, lines 22-42) and by being performed cold is at a temperature below a recrystallization temperature of the outer ring.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Potter and carry out the die pressing process in a cold state or at a temperature below a recrystallization temperature, as taught by Teeple, for the purpose of avoiding the negative impacts of uneven heating if the process were to be carried out as a hot working process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant represents and argument previously presented and first addressed in the office action dated October 29, 2024. This position remains unchanged.
In addressing the remarks in the October 29, 2024 office action Applicant argues that Navarro does not disclose the particular pressing process but states that “Navarro’s press operation may be a species of swaging” and because of this Navarro teaches away from the material being suitable for swaging.
This argument appears to be making the case that because of the lack of specificity of Navarro it is not applicable to swaging. However, the reference is not used to teach the method but rather is showing that the materials claimed are known bearing materials. Navarro states that “in some embodiments…” however this recitation does not include or exclude any of the materials listed above. Applicant is interpreting the statement of Navarro as explicitly stating that the materials listed previously cannot be swaged, this is not what the reference is stating. The reference is stating that materials of lower hardness can be selected, this could include all of the materials above. If Applicant is stating that this should be read as excluding these materials then the previous argument regarding the feasibility of the instant application would come into questions (stated in the previous responses referenced by Applicant).
Ultimately the argument is alleging that based on the evidence used that the materials taught by Navarro are not swaggable materials. This is not persuasive, see the attached NPL document, at least the abstract, that is demonstrating that prior to the invention by Applicant at least Inconel 718 was used to make swaged products. This is providing evidence that the material in question can be swaged and thus supporting the position taken above that Navarro is not teaching away from this fact.
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 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 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