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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 6, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings/Specification
The amendment filed July 6, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the lubricant supply device being at the location provided in the new Figure 2 as well as having the size and shape illustrated; the valves for adjusting the pressure cylinders at the location illustrated; and the illustrated valves leading to respective cylinders in Figure 2.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the clamping assembly recited in claim 1; and the standard machine-tool interface that fastens the machining tool and clamping assembly to the main spindle, the standard interface selected from the steep taper interface, a high shank taper interface, or a Capto interface in claim 20; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: clamping assembly in claim 1; and machining tool in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9, 20 and 21 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 9 recites “the at least one pressure cylinder comprises hydraulic cylinders; and . . . adjusting a spring force of the hydraulic cylinders via valves.” It is unclear whether one pressure cylinder includes plural hydraulic cylinders or if each of the at least one cylinder is a hydraulic cylinder. It is unclear whether the adjustment of spring force of the hydraulic cylinders via valves is respective or if there are multiple valves per cylinder. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 20 recites “fastening the machining tool and the clamping assembly to the main spindle via a standard machine-tool interface selected from a steep taper interface, a high shank taper interface, or a Capto interface.” The metes and bounds of what qualifies as a “standard” interface. Furthermore, the scope of each listed type of interface is unclear, especially given that these allegedly standard interfaces fasten both the machining tool and the clamping assembly to the spindle. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 21 recites “the rolling bearing cage comprises an inclined cage.” It is unclear whether the rolling bearing cage is an inclined cage as disclosed or it includes a rolling bearing cage, presumably in addition to other parts of the rolling bearing cage, as the claim language suggests. Appropriate correction required.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corsi (US Patent No. 5,161,921) in view of Cooper Roller Bearing Co. (GB 543,807).
(Claim 1) Corsi discloses method for machining a workpiece (Fig. 1). The machine tool includes a main spindle (1) defining a spindle axis oriented at an angle relative to a support surface (Figs. 1, 2). The method includes fastening a machining tool (13) and clamping assembly (2) to the main spindle (Fig. 1). The clamping assembly moves with the main spindle (Fig. 1 shows presser unit attached to spindle such that if it moves, so does the presser unit). The clamping assembly includes a receiving plate (19) fixedly fastened to the main spindle; and a pressure plate (20) for pressing the workpiece on the workpiece support (Fig. 1). The pressure plate is annular (at 21; Fig. 3) and includes a passage opening (Figs. 1, 3). The method includes connecting the receiving plate and the pressure plate by at least one pressure cylinder (16-18); pressing the workpiece against the workpiece support using the pressure plate (Col. 1, Lines 62-65); and adjusting a contact pressure of the pressure plate (90) on the workpiece with the at least one cylinder (Col. 3, Lines 30-34). The method further includes guiding the machining tool through the passage opening during the machining of the workpiece (Fig. 1). Corsi does not explicitly disclose the workpiece being a roller bearing cage on a workpiece support surface of the machine tool.
Cooper Roller Bearing Company (“Cooper”) discloses a method of machining a rolling bearing cage (a), mounted upon a workpiece support (d) surface of a machine tool (Fig. 3), using a bearing presser (f) through which a machining tool (e) extends for machining the roller bearing cage (Fig. 3). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the method disclosed in Corsi with a roller bearing cage workpiece as suggested by Cooper in order to drill pockets (b) in the rolling bearing cage.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US Patent No. 3,617,141) in view of Cooper Roller Bearing Co. (GB 543,807).
(Claim 1) Sullivan discloses method of machining a workpiece (Figs. 1-7). The machine tool includes a workpiece support (12) having a support surface. The machine tool also includes a main spindle (29 corresponding to pressure foot 90) defining a spindle axis oriented at an angle relative to the support surface (Figs. 1, 3, 6). The method includes fastening a machining tool (28) and clamping assembly (24) to the main spindle (Fig. 6). The clamping assembly moves with the main spindle (the arrangement in Fig. 5 shows the that the clamping assembly and the spindle move together, at least on the rails 73, 74). The clamping assembly includes a receiving plate (24) fixedly fastened to the main spindle; and a pressure plate (90) for pressing the workpiece on the workpiece support (Fig. 6). The pressure plate is annular (98; Col. 5, Lines 50-51) and includes a passage opening (Figs. 5-7). The method includes connecting the receiving plate and the pressure plate by at least one pressure cylinder (93, 93a); pressing the workpiece against the workpiece support using the pressure plate (90; Fig. 6); and adjusting a contact pressure of the pressure plate (90) on the workpiece with the at least one cylinder (Col. 6, Lines 1-3). The method further includes guiding the machining tool through the passage opening during the machining of the workpiece (Fig. 6). Sullivan does not explicitly disclose the workpiece being a roller bearing cage.
Cooper discloses a method of machining a rolling bearing cage (a) using a bearing presser (f) through which a machining tool (e) extends for machining the roller bearing cage (Fig. 3). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the method disclosed in Sullivan with a roller bearing cage workpiece as suggested by Cooper in order to drill pockets (b) in the rolling bearing cage.
(Claim 3) The machining tool (Sullivan 28) is guided centrally through the passage opening (Sullivan Figs. 5-7).
(Claim 6) The modified method further includes forming a first pocket of the pockets in the rolling bearing cage using the machining tool (Sullivan 28; Cooper Page 3, Line 34), and detaching the pressure plate from the rolling bearing cage (obvious known use to remove after machining to release workpiece).
(Claim 7) The first pocket is drilled (Sullivan via machining tool 28; Cooper Page 3, Line 34).
(Claim 8) The modified Sullivan method does not explicitly disclose the rolling bearing cage material. Yet, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide method disclosed in Sullivan with a rolling bearing cage formed from copper or a copper-based alloy in order to take advantage of the materials relatively high strength, ductility, wear resistance, corrosion resistance, thermal conductivity, and low friction. See MPEP § 2144.07 (“The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
(Claim 10) The clamping assembly is arranged to supply lubricant to cool the machining tool (Sullivan 115 via 106, 108). In the alternative, because Applicant failed to traverse the well-known assertion of at least one lubricant supply device on the clamping means, it is taken as admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03 C. As such, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one lubricant supply device (i.e., nozzle) as claimed in order to provide lubricant to the cutting area (reducing heat/friction at the cutting point).
(Claim 20) Due to Applicant’s admission that the machine-tool interface is standard (i.e., well-known such that they are common), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide such a standard interface for fastening the machine tool to the main spindle. As best understood, the clamping assembly would be considered fastened in an indirect manner.
(Claim 22) The modified method includes fixing the position of the bearing cage on the workpiece support (Cooper Fig. 1) in a region of an inner diameter of the cage before pressing the rolling bearing cage against the workpiece support using the pressure plate (Sullivan Fig. 6; Cooper Fig. 1). It should be noted that a region of an inner diameter is broader than Applicant likely intends and that region may extend to the outer diameter surface. A region, without more, may be arbitrarily designated. While the prior art does not explicitly disclose fixing clamps for fixing the cage to the table, examiner takes official notice that fixing clamps for fixing workpieces to work tables are well-known in the art. As such, at a time prior to filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Sullivan with fixing clamps for fixing the cage to the table.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US Patent No. 3,617,141) in view of Cooper Roller Bearing Co. (GB 543,807) further in view of Kosmowski (US Patent No. 4,530,627).
(Claim 9) Sullivan discloses that the spring force of the at least one cylinder is adjusted via valves (Sullivan 93, 93a; Col. 5, Lines 69-72), but the method discloses pneumatic cylinders, not hydraulic cylinders.
Kosmowski discloses that the at least one pressure cylinders may be pneumatic or hydraulic such that the at least one pressure cylinder includes hydraulic cylinders. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sullivan with hydraulic cylinders as the least one cylinders as suggested by Kosmowski as a simple substitution of one known element for another leading to the predictable result of actuation of the presser plate. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US Patent No. 3,617,141) in view of Cooper Roller Bearing Co. (GB 543,807) further in view of Beyfuss et al. (DE 102013215972 A1).
The modified method of Sullivan does not explicitly include an inclined bearing cage such that the spindle axis would be tilted at a 45 degree angle. Yet, Beyfuss et al. (“Beyfuss”) discloses an inclined bearing cage (Fig. 1). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sullivan with an inclined bearing cage as suggested by Beyfuss in order to “a more reliable and/or easier adjustment of the radial clearance.” (Beyfuss translation). The incline of the spindle merely represents the desired inclination of the hole to be drilled with 45 degree-holes being well-known in the art, the fact of which examiner takes official notice thereof. As such, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to orient the drill at 45-degrees in order to drill such an inclined hole into the cage.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US Patent No. 3,617,141) in view of Cooper Roller Bearing Co. (GB 543,807) further in view of Ohtani et al. (US Patent No. 5,123,789) or Bleicher et al. (AT 509502 A1).
The Sullivan method does not explicitly disclose adjusting the keeping the contact pressure of the pressure plate constant throughout the machining step.
Ohtani et al. (“Ohtani”) discloses keeping the contact pressure of the pressure plate constant throughout the machining step via a pressure release valve (Col. 3, Lines 5-10). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to modify the method of Sullivan with a constant pressure as suggested by Ohtani in order to maintain a constant pressure (not provide too much or too little pressure on the workpiece).
Bleicher et al. (“Bleicher”) discloses keeping the contact pressure of the pressure plate constant throughout the machining step via “a hydraulically or pneumatically actuated drive, in an alternative embodiment (not shown in the figures) in conjunction with a control or regulating device a constant contact pressure can be achieved” (translation). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to modify the method of Sullivan with a constant pressure as suggested by Bleicher in order to maintain a constant pressure (not provide too much or too little pressure on the workpiece).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Sullivan reference fails to disclose the claimed structure because the pressure plate (or hold-down 90) is mounted in the housing structure, not the spindle. Furthermore, Applicant alleges that Sullivan lacks a receiving plate fastened to the spindle, and pressure cylinders connecting the receiving plate to a pressure plate. According to Applicant, the neither the disc 24 is a receiving plate, nor the hold-down 90 tantamount to part of a clamping assembly. Further still, Applicant argues that the clamping assembly components do not move with the spindle. Examiner disagrees.
The claims do not require the pressure plate to be mounted in the spindle. According to claim 1, the pressure plate, as part of the clamping assembly, must be fastened to the main spindle. As indicated in the rejection above, the relationship need not be direct. Nevertheless, the pressure plate of the disclosed invention is not directly connected to the spindle. Likewise, the plate 24 is fastened to the spindle, at least indirectly, and the pressure cylinders connect the receiving plate to the pressure plate as claimed. That is, the pressure cylinders extend from the receiving plate to the pressure plate. Moreover, detail 24 is a receiving plate as it at least receives meets the claimed limitations (as well as receives claimed features within it). Similarly, detail 90 is part of the clamping assembly; namely, detail 90 is the pressure plate. Finally, the tool and the clamp are fixed to the main spindle such that if the spindle moves laterally or axially, the tool and clamp move laterally or axially.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights