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
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, 3-4, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (CN201202732Y) in view of Smolyaninov (EP 1101961 B1) and in further view of Ozawa et al. (US 20180051750 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Du discloses (in annotated fig. 1) a ball bearing (fig. 1) comprising:
an outer ring (2) having a plurality of outer ring orbit grooves (4, 10) formed in an inner circumferential surface of the outer ring (2);
an inner ring (1) having a plurality of inner ring orbit grooves (3, 9) formed in an outer circumferential surface of the inner ring (1);
a plurality of balls (6) rotatably disposed between the outer ring (2) and the inner ring;
and a cage (5) having a plurality of cage grooves to maintain intervals between the plurality of balls (6),
wherein an outer ring contact angle (B21, B22) of an outer ring contact point (C, D) where one of the outer ring orbit grooves (4, 10) contacts one of the balls (6),
and an inner ring contact angle (B11, B12) of an inner ring contact point (A, B) where one of the inner ring orbit grooves (3, 9) contacts the one of the balls (6) is 35º (para. [0013] discloses “when the inner ring 1 is movable, B1 is 40 degrees to 90 degrees, and B2 is 90 degrees to 160 degrees” which would make the inner groove contact angle B11, B12 be 20 degrees to 45 degrees and the outer ring contact angle B21, B22 be between 45 degrees and 80 degrees, which includes the required degree).
Du does not disclose wherein an outer ring contact angle (B21, B22) of an outer ring contact point (C, D) where one of the outer ring orbit grooves (4, 10) contacts one of the balls (6) is 43º (Du discloses 45-80 degrees as noted above).
Smolyaninov teaches the outer ring contact angle of the outer ring contact point where the one of the outer ring orbit grooves contacts the one of the balls is 43º (para. [0020] teaches the outer ring’s double contact angle is 60 degrees to 180 degrees and the inner ring’s double contact 40 degrees to 140 degrees, which would make the outer ring contact angle between 30 degrees to 90 degrees, which includes the required degree) for the purpose of increasing the bearing life by reducing centrifugal forces working on the rolling bodies in a high speed environment (para. [0008]).
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 outer ring contact angle groove be 43º, as taught by Smolyaninov, in the ball bearing of Du for the purpose of increasing the bearing life by reducing centrifugal forces working on the rolling bodies in a high speed environment (Smolyaninov para. [0008]).
Du in view of Smolyaninov does not teach wherein a ratio of a radius of one of the cage grooves to a diameter of the one of the balls is in a range of 0.50 to 0.51.
Ozawa teaches that when the ratio pocket diameter/ball diameter is too large, the ball vibrates in the pocket, thereby increasing the noise and when the ratio pocket diameter/ball diameter is too small, the maximum contact load is increased thus establishing the ratio of diameters/radius of the groove [pockets] and balls is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a ratio of a radius of one of the cage grooves to a diameter of the one of the balls is in a range of 0.50 to 0.51, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, as demonstrated by Ozawa, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
PNG
media_image1.png
591
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Du in view of Smolyaninov and in further view of Ozawa teaches (in annotated fig. 1) the ball bearing of claim 1, wherein the outer ring contact angle (B21, B22) of the outer ring contact point (C, D) where the one of the outer ring orbit grooves (4, 10) contacts the one of the balls (6) is defined as an angle between a radial center line (CL) crossing a center of the one of the balls (6) and an outer ring contact line (OL) connecting the center of the one of the balls (6) and the outer ring contract point (C, D) where the one of the outer ring orbit grooves (4, 10) contacts the one of the balls (6).
Regarding claim 4, Du in view of Smolyaninov and in further view of Ozawa teaches (in annotated fig. 1) the ball bearing of claim 1, wherein the inner ring contact angle (B11, B12) of the inner ring contact point (A, B) where the one of the inner ring orbit grooves (3, 9) contacts the one of the balls (6) is defined as an angle between a radial center line (CL) crossing a center of the one of the balls (6) and an inner ring contact line (IL) connecting the center of the one of the balls (6) and the inner ring contact point (A, B) where the one of the inner ring orbit grooves (3, 9) contacts the one of the balls (6).
Regarding claim 7, Du in view of Smolyaninov and in further view of Ozawa teaches (in annotated fig. 1) the ball bearing of claim 1, wherein, with respect to a radial center line (CL) crossing a center of the one the balls (6), the outer ring contact point (C, D) where the one of the outer ring orbit grooves (4, 10) contacts the one of the balls (6) is farther away than the inner ring contact point (A, B) where the one of the inner ring orbit grooves (3, 9) contacts the one of the balls (6).
Regarding claim 8, Du in view of Smolyaninov and in further view of Ozawa teaches (in annotated fig. 1) the ball bearing of claim 1, wherein the one of the balls (6) contacts the outer ring orbit grooves (4, 10) at two outer ring contact points (C, D) including the outer ring contact point (C) at one side and another outer ring contact point (D) at another side with respect to a radial center line (CL) crossing a center of the one of the balls (6).
Regarding claim 9, Du in view of Smolyaninov and in further view of Ozawa teaches (in annotated fig. 1) the ball bearing of claim 1, wherein the one of the balls (6) contacts the inner ring orbit grooves (3, 9) at two inner ring contact points (A, B) including the inner ring contact point (A) at one side and another inner ring contact point (B) at another side with respect to a radial center line (CL) crossing a center of the one of the balls (6).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (CN201202732Y) in view of Smolyaninov (EP 1101961 B1) and in further view of Ozawa et al. (US 20180051750 A1) and in further view of Yakura et al. (US 6481898 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Du in view of Smolyaninov and in further view of Ozawa teaches (in annotated fig. 1) the ball bearing of claim 1 but does not disclose a curvature of one of the outer ring orbit grooves is smaller than a curvature of one of the inner ring orbit grooves.
Yakura teaches (in fig. 1) a curvature of one of the outer ring orbit grooves (9) is smaller than a curvature of one of the inner ring orbit grooves (8 and col. 9, lines 40-46 teaches the range of the outer ring orbit groove can be smaller than the inner ring orbit grooves) for the purpose of suppressing the heat value of the entire ball bearing and extending the bearing life at a reduced cost (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a curvature of one of the outer ring orbit grooves be smaller than a curvature of one of the inner ring orbit grooves, as taught by Yakura, in the ball bearing of Du in view of Smolyaninov and in further view of Ozawa for the purpose of suppressing the heat value of the entire ball bearing and extending the bearing life at a reduced cost (Yakura abstract).
Response to Arguments
With regards to the drawing objections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument on page 8 over Du in view of Ozawa is inconsistent with the rejection as the Examiner is not stating that that Ozawa has the specific ratio claimed but that Ozawa is showing that the ratio is a result effect variable. Examiner agrees that Ozawa does not have the same ratio as the instant application but the Applicant has not responded to the conclusion reached in the rejection above that the ratio is a result effective variable in light of the teachings of Ozawa.
The Applicant has also changed the contact angles in claim 1 to be specific degrees and argues that these specific values are not disclosed in the prior art applied above. Du and Smolyaninov both disclose ranges that include these values thus indicating prior to the invention by Applicant that these specific values now claimed were known and used since by reciting a range the prior art covers and anticipates each individual value within that range.
Even then, as shown in the prior arts, these contact angles are also considered result effective variables since contact angles are known to be varied in order to change the amount of axial and radial load a rolling element bearing can support.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617