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 .
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl DE 102017104121 in view of Krebs U.S. 2016/0108966 and Niebling U.S. 2008/0310785.
Re clm 1 and 16, Stahl discloses a tapered roller bearing (Fig. 2 and 3) having a diameter, comprising: an inner ring (5 and 6) having at least two inner raceways (13 and 14), an outer ring having at least two outer raceways (15 and 16), the inner ring and the outer ring being rotatable with respect to each other, and at least two sets of tapered rollers (11 and 12) disposed between the inner ring and the outer ring configured to roll on the at least two inner raceways and the at least two outer raceways about a tapered-roller rotational axis (dashed line through rollers 11 and 12), the tapered roller bearing being configured to rotate about a bearing rotational axis (D), wherein an angle formed by the bearing rotational axis and the tapered-roller rotational axis is greater than 45° (as shown by Fig. 2 and 3), wherein the at least two set of tapered rollers comprises a first set of tapered rollers and a second set of tapered rollers axially spaced from the first set of tapered rollers (axial spacing between rollers 11 and 12).
Stahl is silent as to the size of the bearing and does not disclose an outer diameter of less than 1.5 m.
Krebs discloses a similar tapered roller bearing comprising a diameter of less than 1.5 m (greater than 50 cm overlaps with less than 1.5 m).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Stahl in view of Krebs and provide an outer diameter of less than 1.5 m, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A). The bearing of the prior art would not perform differently based on the size of the bearing alone. Furthermore, sizing a bearing based on the application is not only obvious, but commonplace in the art.
Stahl does not disclose a ratio of an inner diameter of the inner ring and a minimum axial spacing of geometric center points of a tapered roller of the first set of tapered rollers and a tapered roller of the second set of tapered rollers is smaller than 15 [clm 1] or between 8 and 12 [clm 16].
Niebling teaches a bearing arrangement with two angular contact raceways in which a ratio of an inner diameter (dL, Fig. 2) and an axial spacing (rL) of geometric center points of the rolling elements of a first set of rolling elements and a second set of rolling elements is a result effective variable (Fig. 1; [0045]) for the purpose of improving the rigidity of the bearing ([0005], [0020], [0035], [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stahl and provide a ratio of an inner diameter of the inner ring and a minimum axial spacing of geometric center points of a tapered roller of the first set of tapered rollers and a tapered roller of the second set of tapered rollers is smaller than 15 or between 8 and 12, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). It is noted that Applicant’s reason for the ratio is to affect the rigidity of the bearing ([0016]). Therefore, not only does Niebling recognize the same ratio as a result effective variable, but Niebling also recognizes the ratio as a result effective variable for the same reason (rigidity). Still further, both dimensions (spacing of center points of the rollers) and diameter of the inner race are well known variables affecting rigidity. The larger the diameter of the bearing (such as the inner diameter of the inner race), the less rigid the bearing becomes. The larger the spacing between the centers of the rollers, the more rigid the bearing becomes.
Re clm 2 and 14, although Stahl discloses that the angle is less than 90° ([0024]) and that the angle is a result effective variable ([0028]), Stahl does not explicitly disclose the angle is between 45° and 65° [clm 2] or between 50° and 55° [clm 14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stahl and provide the angle is between 45° and 65° or between 50° and 55°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). As noted by Stahl, different angles change the axial load capacity, the radial load capacity as well as the tipping stiffness ([0028]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the angle based on the loading conditions required by the bearing in different applications/devices.
Re clm 3, Stahl further discloses the outer ring includes a guide flange (at left ends of raceways 15 and 16) for guiding the tapered rollers, the guide flange being formed one-piece with the outer ring.
Re clm 4, Stahl further discloses the outer ring is one-part (2) and the inner ring is two-part (5 and 6, Fig. 2-3).
Re clm 5, Stahl further discloses the outer ring is fixed and the inner ring is rotatable (outer ring attached to machine frame [0015]).
Re clm 7, Stahl further discloses the at least two inner raceways and/or the at least two outer raceways have a straight profile (as shown in Fig. 2-3).
Re clm 13, Stahl further discloses the tapered roller bearing is a high-precision tapered roller bearing ([0002]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl DE 102017104121 in view of Krebs U.S. 2016/0108966 and Niebling U.S. 2008/0310785 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scheibner U.S. 2018/0023622.
Stahl in view of Krebs and Niebling discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 6, Stahl further discloses the outer ring includes an outer flange (left end of 2, Fig. 2-3).
Stahl does not disclose an axial thickness of the outer flange is less than an axial thickness of the outer ring.
Scheibner teaches a similar tapered rolling bearing comprising an outer ring (8) including an outer flange (16) in which an axial thickness (B) of the outer flange is less than an axial thickness (G) of the outer ring for the purpose of allowing the raceways to expand radially in a limited manner while on the hand maintaining the total stiffness of the outer ring ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stahl and provide an axial thickness of the outer flange is less than an axial thickness of the outer ring for the purpose of allowing the raceways to expand radially in a limited manner while on the hand maintaining the total stiffness of the outer ring.
Claims 8-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl DE 102017104121 in view of Krebs U.S. 2016/0108966 and Niebling U.S. 2008/0310785 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsushita U.S. 2020/0300294.
Stahl in view of Krebs and Niebling discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 8, Stahl does not disclose the tapered rollers have a crowned profile.
Matsushita discloses a tapered bearing comprising tapered rollers have a crowned profile for the purpose of setting the edge surface pressure to the proper value ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stahl and provide the tapered rollers have a crowned profile for the purpose of setting the edge surface pressure to the proper value.
Re clm 9 and 15, although Matsushita discloses the edge clearance being a result effective variable ([0053]), Matsushita does not disclose the edge clearance between an edge of an axial end side of each tapered roller and the inner raceway and/or the outer raceway is less than 20 µm [clm 9] or is between 1 µm and 10 µm [clm 15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsushita and provide the edge clearance between an edge of an axial end side of each tapered roller and the inner raceway and/or the outer raceway is less than 20 µm or is between 1 µm and 10 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). As noted by Matsushita, if the edge clearance (crowning drop) is too small then edge surface pressure increases. On the other hand, if edge clearance is too large, then difficulty in manufacturing arises ([0053]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl DE 102017104121 in view of Krebs U.S. 2016/0108966 and Niebling U.S. 2008/0310785 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iketaka U.S. 2014/0270613.
Stahl in view of Krebs and Niebling discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 12, Stahl does not disclose a variance of a diameter measured at an axial center of each of the tapered rollers is less than 1 µm.
Iketaka teaches a circularity of roller members less than 1 µm ([0019]) for the purpose of reducing noise in the bearing ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stahl and provide a variance of a diameter measured at an axial center of each of the tapered rollers is less than 1 µm for the purpose of reducing noise in the bearing.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl DE 102017104121 in view of Krebs U.S. 2016/0108966 and Niebling U.S. 2008/0310785 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scheibner U.S. 2018/0023622 and Matsushita U.S. 2020/0300294.
Stahl in view of Krebs and Niebling discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 17, Stahl further discloses the at least two inner raceways comprises a first inner raceway (13, Fig. 2-3) and a second inner raceway (14), wherein the outer ring includes a first guide flange (shoulder at left end of raceway 15) configured to guide the first set of tapered rollers and a second guide flange (shoulder at left end of 16) configured to guide the second set of tapered rollers, wherein the outer ring includes an outer flange (left end of 2) projecting away from the inner ring.
Although Stahl discloses that the angle is less than 90° ([0024]) and that the angle is a result effective variable ([0028]), Stahl does not explicitly disclose the angle is between 50° and 55°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stahl and provide the angle is between 50° and 55°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). As noted by Stahl, different angles change the axial load capacity, the radial load capacity as well as the tipping stiffness ([0028]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the angle based on the loading conditions required by the bearing in different applications/devices.
Stahl does not disclose wherein an axial thickness of the outer flange is less than an axial thickness of the outer ring.
Scheibner teaches a similar tapered rolling bearing comprising an outer ring (8) including an outer flange (16) in which an axial thickness (B) of the outer flange is less than an axial thickness (G) of the outer ring for the purpose of allowing the raceways to expand radially in a limited manner while on the hand maintaining the total stiffness of the outer ring ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stahl and provide an axial thickness of the outer flange is less than an axial thickness of the outer ring for the purpose of allowing the raceways to expand radially in a limited manner while on the hand maintaining the total stiffness of the outer ring.
Stahl does not disclose wherein the tapered rollers of the first and second sets of tapered rollers are crowned.
Matsushita discloses a tapered bearing comprising tapered rollers have a crowned profile for the purpose of setting the edge surface pressure to the proper value ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stahl and provide the tapered rollers have a crowned profile for the purpose of setting the edge surface pressure to the proper value.
Although Matsushita discloses the edge clearance being a result effective variable ([0053]), Matsushita does not disclose the edge clearance between an edge of an axial end side of each tapered roller and the inner raceway and/or the outer raceway is between 1 µm and 10 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsushita and provide the edge clearance between an edge of an axial end side of each tapered roller and the inner raceway and/or the outer raceway is between 1 µm and 10 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). As noted by Matsushita, if the edge clearance (crowning drop) is too small then edge surface pressure increases. On the other hand, if edge clearance is too large, then difficulty in manufacturing arises ([0053]).
Re clm 18, Stahl is silent as the specific dimensions and does not disclose the ratio is between 8 and 12.
Scheibner teaches a similar ratio of a diameter of the outer ring relative to a width of the outer ring (which axially overlaps the rolling elements) having a ratio from 5:1 to 25:1 as particularly advantageous ([0005]). While the dimensions are not exactly the same, they are extremely analogous. For example, measuring the total width of the outer race is simply a different way to describe the spacing between the two sets of tapered rollers. Furthermore, measuring the outer ring diameter versus the inner ring diameter is simply another way to describe the overall size of the bearing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stahl and provide the ratio is smaller than 15 or between 8 and 12, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). It is further noted that the ratio is a well-known result effect variable. For example, the larger the ratio of the diameter to the roller spacing, the closer the spacing is for a given diameter. Closer spacings of tapered rollers have a smaller resistance to bending moment than larger spacings between tapered rollers. On the other hand, larger spacings require larger (wider) bearing rings which increases the overall weight of the bearing. Balancing the strength and weight of bearing devices is fundamental to the bearing design process and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no indication in Niebling that the ratios of shown in Fig. 1 (the ‘developments’ and ‘refinements’ of paragraphs [0035] and [0042]) are independent variables. The examiner isn’t aware of any requirement in which result-effective variables must be ‘independent’ variables. All that is required is that the variable be recognized as a “result-effective” variable. This is clearly the case in Niebling. The examiner further points to paragraph [0020] which was cited in the rejection, but is missing from Applicant’s arguments. Paragraph [0020] specifically states “advantageous and nontrivial developments of the subject of the invention”…”may be gathered from the depend claims”. The subject of the invention is stated to be providing high rigidity ([0005]). Dependent claim 7 specifically cites the same ratio as that of the invention and is the only limitation of claim 7.
It is clear from a full reading of Niebling that each ratio listed in paragraphs [0042]-[0050] affect the ‘subject of the invention’, in other words, stiffness/rigidity of the bearing. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize each and every one of the result-effective variables, individually or collectively, listed in the table of Fig. 1, paragraphs [0042]-[0050], and the dependent claims.
Applicant further argues that Niebling does not disclose that the ratio is a result-effective variable for tapered roller bearings. The examiner disagrees since Niebling explicitly states that the invention applies to “ball or rolling bearings” in paragraph [0026]. There are only two types of rolling bearings with angular contact: i) angular cylindrical rollers and ii) tapered rollers. One of ordinary skill in the art knows tapered rollers to be a subset of rolling bearings with angular contact. Applicant’s assertion that this ratio could not be applied to the tapered rollers of Stahl is not consistent with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or a plain reading of the Niebling reference.
Based on the reasoning above, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the rejections have been maintained.
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 ALAN B WAITS whose telephone number is (571)270-3664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6-4 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 R 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.
/ALAN B WAITS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617