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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 17-19, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishikawa U.S. 2021/0025446.
Re clm 1, Ishikawa discloses a tapered roller bearing (Fig. 2), comprising: a first ring (13) having a first raceway (13A), the first ring being a radially inner ring, a second ring (11) having a second raceway (11A), and a plurality of tapered rollers (12) between the first raceway and the second raceway and configured to roll on the first raceway and the second raceway, wherein the first ring and the second ring are coaxial, wherein a common axis of rotation extends through a center of the first ring and through a center of the second ring, wherein the first ring includes an axially inner retaining flange (42) and an axially outer guide flange (at 41), the guide flange having a conical contact surface (18) lying on a first cone and being configured to guide the tapered rollers and an undercut (25A) at a junction of the first raceway and the conical contact surface, wherein the guide flange includes a reinforcing portion (portion of 41 above horizontal dashed line, see Annotated Fig. 2) formed integrally with the guide flange, wherein the conical contact surface has a radially inner end at the undercut (bottom of 18 is at undercut 25A) and a radially outer end (where horizontal dashed line crosses 18, Annotated Fig. 2), wherein the reinforcing portion is located radially outward of the radially outer end of the conical contact surface out of contact with the rollers (above horizontal dashed line, Annotated Fig. 2) and is configured to radially reinforce the conical contact surface (any extra mass radially outward of conical surface will reinforce surface), wherein an imaginary second cone (solid line, Annotated Fig. 2) parallel to the first raceway intersects the radially outer end of the conical contact surface at an imaginary circle (where horizontal dashed line meets solid line, Annotated Fig. 2), the imaginary circle lying in a plane (vertical dashed line, Annotated Fig. 2), wherein a first part of the reinforcing portion comprises all portions of the radially inner ring located radially outward of the imaginary second cone (shown in Annotated Fig. 2), wherein an entirety of the reinforcing portion is located on a first side of the plane (right side of vertical dashed line, Annotated Fig. 2), and wherein the retaining flange is located on a second side of the plane (42 is located on left side of vertical dashed line, Annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
556
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re clm 17, Ishikawa further discloses a differential gear ([0236]) having a tapered roller bearing according to claim 1.
Re clm 18, Ishikawa further discloses a vehicle ([0246]) including the differential gear according to claim 17.
Re clm 19, Ishikawa further discloses wherein a surface of the reinforcing portion facing the plurality of rollers is convex (upper left side of 41 is convexly curved due to round over, Fig. 2).
Re clm 25, Ishikawa further discloses the conical contact surface is the surface contacted by a portion of one of the plurality of tapered rollers when the roller is viewed in section along a longitudinal midplane of the roller through a portion of the roller closest to the undercut (shown in Fig. 2).
Re clm 27, Ishikawa further discloses the reinforcing portion in radial section has a linear surface (horizontal top surface of 41, Fig. 2) extending from the convex surface (left or right corner round over, Fig. 2) of the reinforcing portion.
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 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa U.S. 2021/0025446 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koganei U.S. 2016/0040716.
Ishikawa discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 11 and 12, Ishikawa further discloses an angle between the first raceway and an axis of rotation of the tapered roller bearing.
Ishikawa does not disclose the angle is greater than 25° or is greater than 30°.
Koganei teaches the angle of the first raceway is a result effect variable ([0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishikawa and provide an angle greater than 25°, 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). Koganei teaches the angle improves rigidity. One of ordinary skill in the art knows that the angle also determines the load bearing capabilities in both the axial and radial directions.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa U.S. 2021/0025446 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Else U.S. 1,736,037.
Ishikawa discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 24, Ishikawa does not disclose a conical first side of the undercut lies on the first cone and forms an extension of the conical contact surface and defines with the conical contact surface an axial length of a conical portion of the guide flange.
Else discloses a conical first side of the undercut (u-shaped void in 4 radially below C) lies on the first cone (line B) and forms an extension of the conical contact surface and defines with the conical contact surface an axial length of a conical portion of the guide flange.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the undercut shape of Ishikawa with that of Else and provide a conical first side of the undercut lies on the first cone and forms an extension of the conical contact surface and defines with the conical contact surface an axial length of a conical portion of the guide flange to achieve the predictable result of preventing corner contact between the roller and the inner ring causing high stress and early failure of the bearing.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa U.S. 2021/0025446 as applied to claim 1 above.
Ishikawa discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 26, Ishikawa does not disclose a cross section of the reinforcing portion has a half-heart shape, the half-heart shape being one half of a full-heart shape, the half-heart shape being bounded by a line of symmetry of the full-heart shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishikawa and provide a cross section of the reinforcing portion has a half-heart shape, the half-heart shape being one half of a full-heart shape, the half-heart shape being bounded by a line of symmetry of the full-heart shape, since it has been held that shape of a device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed device was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 20-23 allowed.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Specifically, Ishikawa has replaced Else as the primary reference. Ishikawa discloses all the features of the rejected claims as noted above.
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 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