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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, the limitation “the non-magnetic region defined by gaps between adjacent rolling elements is aligned with a location of the communication module exposed to the end surface of the side of the first bearing facing the second bearing in the axial direction of the outer-ring spacer, such that a direct path for wireless communication is present between the communication module and an exterior of the apparatus at all times during rotation of the bearing apparatus, even as the first rolling elements revolve with bearing rotation” is not supported by the original disclosure as the specification never discusses the “gap” or how when the balls move in front of the transmitter there would always be “a direct path” “even as the first rolling elements revolve with bearing rotation.” A gap is presented between balls in all bearings but the gap would move with rotation and thus at points in time the balls would move to obstruct the transmitter. In this situation, how can there “always” be a direct path when the bearing is operational?
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 1-3 and 5-10 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.
In claim 1, it is unclear how the limitation “a direct path is always present between the communication module and an exterior of the apparatus at all times during rotation of the bearing apparatus, even as the first rolling elements revolve with bearing rotation” when there are situations where the rolling element will move in front of the transmitter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 and 10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (JP 2020060227 A) in view of Yamamoto (US 20130116936 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fukushima discloses (in fig. 14) a bearing apparatus accommodated in inside of a cylindrical housing (18), the bearing apparatus comprising:
a first bearing (1b) including a first inner ring (4b),
a first outer ring (2b),
and a plurality of first rolling elements (3b) arranged between the first inner ring (4b) and the first outer ring (2b);
a second bearing (1a) including a second inner ring (4a),
a second outer ring (2a),
and a plurality of second rolling elements (3a) arranged between the second inner ring (4a) and the second outer ring (2a),
the second bearing (1a) being different from the first bearing (1b);
a spacer (13 and 14) arranged between the first bearing (1b) and the second bearing (1a),
the spacer including an inner-ring spacer (14) and an outer-ring spacer (13);
and a communication module (28, 7a, 7b) attached to the outer-ring spacer (13) such that the communication module (28, 7a, 7b) is arranged between the first bearing (1b) and the second bearing (1a, para. [0090] discloses that 28 can be disposed within the recess on the outer diameter surface of the outer ring spacer and fig. 14 shows 7a and 7b are attached to the outer-ring spacer),
the communication module (28, 7a, 7b) comprising at least one sensor (7a or 7b) and a communication apparatus (28),
wherein the communication apparatus (28) is configured to wirelessly communicate communicating over electromagnetic waves (para. [0090] discloses “As shown in FIG. 14, the bearing device according to embodiments 1 to 6 may further include a transmitting unit 28 for wirelessly transmitting the detection results of the first heat flux sensor 7a and the second heat flux sensor 7b to the outside of the bearing device.”),
wherein a non-magnetic region (the space between the rolling elements can also be considered the non-magnetic region, this interpretation is consistent with the disclosure of the instant application where para. [0049] states that the space between adjacent rolling elements can also be considered part of the non-magnetic region) for passage of the electromagnetic waves is formed in a region directly sandwiched between the first inner ring (4b) and the first outer ring (2b).
Fukushima does not disclose the communication apparatus is exposed to an end surface of a side of the first bearing facing the second bearing in an axial direction of the outer-ring spacer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the communication apparatus be arranged so that the communication apparatus is exposed to an end surface of a side of the first bearing facing the second bearing in an axial direction of the outer-ring spacer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. The modification of the location of the communication apparatus would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date as changing the location of the communication apparatus does not change its function, since it is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Fukushima does not disclose the plurality of rolling elements are arranged at prescribed intervals from one another on a pitch circle circumference lying between the inner ring and the outer ring, and a ratio occupied by the plurality of rolling elements on the pitch circle circumference is not lower than 40% and not higher than 90%.
Yamamoto teaches (in fig. 2) that a plurality of rolling elements (3) are arranged at prescribed intervals from one another on a pitch circle circumference lying between the inner ring (2) and the outer ring (1), and a ratio occupied by the plurality of rolling elements (3) on the pitch circle circumference is not lower than 40% and not higher than 90% (Yamamoto clearly illustrates an arrangement of the balls where the spacing between adjacent balls is smaller than the diameter of the balls, this results in a ratio of over 50%, the ratio is also clearly less than 90% in figure 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 the pitch circle circumference is not lower than 40% and not higher than 90%, as taught by Yamamoto, in the bearing apparatus of Fukushima, for the purpose and predictable result of providing a bearing with a specific load capacity (see NOTE below). Such a modification to the spacing would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
NOTE: the ratio recited in the claim is ultimately a means of defining the number of rolling elements between the inner and outer ring without specifically calling out a number. The number of rolling elements employed in a bearing is a known result effective variable that is directly linked to load capacity, see Murphy US PGPub 20110185998 which teaches the number of rollers increase the load capacity of a bearing linearly (para. [0049]), a small number of rolling elements the less load can be supported as the number of rolling elements the load is distributed across is lower, however a higher number of rolling elements can support a larger load as there are more rolling elements to distribute the load across. Using a specific number of rolling elements, either defined as a particular number of as a ratio, is not inventive.
Fukushima in view of Yamamoto, as best understood, teaches the non-magnetic region defined by gaps between adjacent rolling elements is aligned with a location of the communication module exposed to the end surface of the side of the first bearing facing the second bearing in the axial direction of the outer-ring spacer, such that a direct path for wireless communication is present between the communication module and an exterior of the apparatus at all times during rotation of the bearing apparatus, even as the first rolling elements revolve with bearing rotation (the current combination of Fukushima in view of Yamamoto would have the same limitations as the instant application as the structure would be similar and there are gaps between the rolling elements).
Regarding claim 2, Fukushima in view of Yamamoto teaches the bearing (fig. 14) apparatus according to claim 1 wherein a self-generation apparatus (29 in Fukushima fig. 14) arranged between the first bearing (1b) and the second bearing (1a), the self-generation (29) apparatus supplying electric power to the communication apparatus (28, para. [0092] “As shown in FIG. 14, the bearing device may further include a power supply unit 29 for supplying power to the transmitting unit 28.”)
Regarding claim 3, Fukushima in view of Yamamoto teaches the bearing apparatus (fig. 14) according to claim 1, wherein an outer diameter of the first inner ring (4b) is formed to be smaller than an inner diameter of the first outer ring (2b), and the non-magnetic region (the space between the rolling elements can also be considered the non-magnetic region, this interpretation is consistent with the disclosure of the instant application where para. [0049] states that the space between adjacent rolling elements can also be considered part of the non-magnetic region) is formed in a region lying between the first inner ring (4b) and the first outer ring (2b).
Regarding claim 10, Fukushima in view of Yamamoto teaches the bearing apparatus (fig. 14) with the communication apparatus (28) but does not teach the communication apparatus wirelessly communicates over electromagnetic waves at a frequency higher than a revolution period of the rolling elements in rotation of the first bearing at an allowable rotation speed.
The claim recitation is setting forth the operational conditions of the device, which is not structurally limiting the bearing apparatus itself (stating how the device or the conditions in which the device is to operate). However, even if considered as structurally limiting selecting the frequency of wireless transmission devices it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to set the frequency within the claim perimeters (or at any other frequency), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed (wireless transmission), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (JP 2020060227 A) in view of Yamamoto (US 20130116936 A1) and in further view of Ikeda (JP 2004204913 A).
Regarding claim 5, Fukushima in view of Yamamoto teaches the bearing apparatus (fig. 14) according to claim 3 but does not teach the plurality of first rolling elements are made of a non-magnetic material.
Ikeda teaches (in para. [0004]) the plurality of rolling elements are made of a non-magnetic material like silicon nitride for the purpose of seizure resistance (para. [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first rolling element of Fukushima in view of Yamamoto be made of a non-magnetic material like silicon nitride in Ikeda for the purpose of seizure resistance (para. [0004]). It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis for its suitability for the intended uses as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, Fukushima in view of Yamamoto and in further view of Ikeda teaches the bearing apparatus (fig. 14) according to claim 5, wherein the non-magnetic material is silicon nitride (Ikeda para. [0004]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (JP 2020060227 A) in view of Yamamoto (US 20130116936 A1) and in further view of Ito (US 20070154126 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Fukushima in view of Yamamoto teaches the bearing apparatus (fig. 14) according to claim 3 but does not teach the plurality of first rolling elements are made of a magnetic material.
Ito teaches (in para. [0033]) the plurality of rolling elements are made of a magnetic material like high carbon chromium bearing steel for the purpose of excellent wear resistance and strength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first rolling elements of Fukushima in view of Yamamoto be made of a magnetic material like high carbon chromium bearing steel for the purpose of excellent wear resistance and strength. It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis for its suitability for the intended uses as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, Fukushima in view of Yamamoto and in further view of Ito teaches the bearing apparatus (fig. 14) according to claim 7, wherein the magnetic material is high-carbon chromium steel (Ito para. [0033]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (JP 2020060227 A) in view of Yamamoto (US 20130116936 A1) and in further view of Iida et al. (US 8388232 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Fukushima in view of Yamamoto teaches the bearing apparatus according to claim 1 but does not teach a component arranged between an outside surface of the first outer ring and the inside surface of the housing, the component being made of a non-magnetic material, wherein the non-magnetic region is formed in a region lying between the outside surface of the first outer ring and the inside surface of the housing.
Iida teaches (in fig. 6 and col. 1 line 66 - col. 2 line 5) a component (rubber O-rings) arranged between an outside surface of the outer ring (10) and the inside surface of the housing (motor housing, not shown), the component being made of a non-magnetic material (rubber), wherein the non-magnetic region is formed in a region lying between the outside surface of the outer ring (10) and the inside surface of the housing (motor housing, not shown) for the purpose of reducing a clearance between the housing and preventing the movement of creep (col. 1, lines 63-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the rubber O-rings of Iida in the bearing apparatus of Fukushima in view of Yamamoto for the purpose of reducing a clearance between the housing and preventing the movement of creep (col. 1, lines 63-65).
Response to Arguments
With regards to the objection, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing that rearranging the location of the communication apparatus 28 is not obvious because the current location of 28 is surrounded on all sides by metallic components and that Fukushima acknowledges that the electromagnetic waves are less likely to go through the metal and that convention system requires a space or opening in the housing to enable wireless communication. Applicant further argues that rearranging the parts changes the electromagnetic propagation geometrical from a radial metal obstructed path to an axial unobstructed path facing a defined non-magnetic region between the first inner ring and the first outer ring. However, rearrangement of parts is not just about being possible, but whether it is possible to rearrange components in an obvious manner because of a specific motivation. For example, the rearranging of the component would further benefit from better transmitting of electromagnetic waves through the device.
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 AIMEE T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 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, 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.
/AIMEE TRAN NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617