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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The listing of references in the specification is also not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 6a and 6b are grey, pixelated images that do not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l). In figure 6b it also cannot be determined what the image is actually showing, is this an actual photograph of the surface? If so, in order to clearly see the image the photograph would have to be submitted and the submission comply with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2), 1.84(b)(2) and 37 CFR 1.17(h).
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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
However, it is noted that the specification is missing the Cross Reference to Related Applications portion of the disclosure, see 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP 211.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13, “is sliding contact” should read - -is in sliding contact with”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibata, USP 9,623,703.
Regarding claim 1, Shibata discloses a sealed rolling bearing comprising: a seal member (8 or 9) that seals a bearing space (space between 10 and 2/3); a fixed side member (10); and a rotating side member (2/3), wherein: the seal member (8 or 9) is fixed to the fixed side member (10) and is configured to be in sliding contact with the rotating side member (both seal elements are attached to the outer ring just like in the instant application, seal 9 also has a slinger element attached to the inner ring just like seal 11 in the instant application), the seal member has a seal lip (13 and 19) that is in sliding contact with the rotating side member, grease (15) is applied to at least one of a sliding contact surface of the seal lip and a sliding contact surface of the rotating side member with which the seal lip is in sliding contact with, the grease contains a base oil and a thickener (see column 8, lines 32-48 and Table 1), the kinematic viscosity at 40 °C of the base oil is 6-45 mm°/s (see column 8, lines 32-38 and Table 1 which discloses values as low as 20), and the worked penetration of the grease measured based on JIS K 2220 is 220-320 (the recitation regarding the standard used for measuring work penetration does not limit the claim, Shibata discloses worked penetrations within this claimed range, column 8, lines 32-48, Table 1 and claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Shibata discloses that the kinematic viscosity at 40 °C of the base oil is 6-20 mm°/s, and the worked penetration of the grease oil is 220-270 (see Table 1, grease B).
Regarding claim 6, Shibata further discloses that esters can be mixed in to avoid rust in column 10, lines 21-23, esters being an antirust agent, the worked penetration of the grease is 220-280 (the worked penetration disclosed by Shibata anticipates this range).
Regarding claim 7, Shibata discloses that the antirust agent is at least one of an ester-based antirust agent and a sulfonate-based antirust agent (column 10, lines 21-23 discloses both esters and sulfonates as antirust agents).
Regarding claim 11, Shibata discloses that the seal member is formed of nitrile rubber (see column 8, lines 19-31, NBR is a nitrile rubber), the seal lip includes a first seal lip (13c or 19b), a second seal lip (13b or 19c) and a third seal lip (13a or 19a) in this order from an inner side of the bearing space, and the grease is applied to the sliding contact surface of each of the seal lips (the grease 15 contacts each seal lip).
Regarding claim 12, Shibata discloses that the sealed rolling bearing is configured as a bearing that rotatably supports an axle (the bearing is a wheel hub bearing, this is the same type of bearing illustrated in figure 1 of the instant application and thus the bearing of the prior art supports in axle in the same manner as in the instant application).
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(s) 2-5, 9, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata, USP 9,623,703, in view of Miwa, JP2019039470.
Regarding claim 2, Shibata, while disclosing that the thickener can be a urea compound or a lithium compound (see Table 1), does not disclose that the thickener is specifically a urea compound or a complex lithium soap, the urea compound is obtained by causing a polyisocyanate component and a monoamine component to react with each other, and the monoamine component is at least one of aliphatic monoamine and alicyclic monoamine.
Miwa teaches a bearing grease that includes a thickener in the form of a urea compound or a lithium soap (see last full paragraph on page 5 of attached translation) and with specific regards to the urea compound that the compound is obtained by reacting a polyisocyanate component with a monoamine component with the monoamine being an aliphatic monoamine or alicyclic monoamine (see paragraph spanning pages 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Shibata and replace the grease with any other previously known bearing grease, including one that uses a urea compound obtained by reacting a polyisocyanate component with a monoamine component, as taught by Miwa, since substituting between different known bearing greases provides the same predictable result of lubricating the sliding contact surfaces to reduce wear within the device.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Shibata discloses that the base oil can include a synthetic oil (see column 9, lines 30-31) but does not specifically disclose that the base oil is at least one of synthetic hydrocarbon oil, ester oil, and ether oil [clm 3] or more specifically the base oil is formed of only synthetic hydrocarbon oil or a mixed oil of the synthetic hydrocarbon oil and ester oil [clm 4].
Miwa teaches that a bearing grease can include base oil, specifically a synthetic hydrocarbon oil (PAO) alone or an ester oil alone, or alternative the two used in combination (see page 5 of the translation, paragraph beginning with “When the lubricant composition is used as a grease”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Shibata and replace the grease with any other previously known bearing grease, including one that a synthetic hydrocarbon or an ester oil alone or in combination, as taught by Miwa, since substituting between different known bearing greases provides the same predictable result of lubricating the sliding contact surfaces to reduce wear within the device.
Regarding claim 5, in the alternative, Shibata discloses that the kinematic viscosity at 40 °C of the base oil can be as low as 20, but does not disclose values less than 20 and more specifically a range including 6-20 mm2/s with the worked penetration of the grease oil is 220-270.
Miwa teaches that grease for a bearing can include a base oil with viscosity values that can be values less than 20 and in the range of 6-20 with the worked penetration being in the range of 220-270 (see the bottom of page 5 and the middle of page 6 in the attached translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Shibata and replace the grease with any other previously known bearing grease, including one has a lower range of base oil viscosity, within the range of 6-20, and a penetration in the range of 220-270, as taught by Miwa, since substituting between different known bearing greases provides the same predictable result of lubricating the sliding contact surfaces to reduce wear within the device.
Regarding claim 9, Shibata does not disclose that the grease contains an antioxidant, the grease contains 0.1 mass% or more and less than 3 mass% of the antioxidant relative to the total amount of the base oil and the thickener, and the worked penetration of the grease is 240-300.
Miwa further teaches that the bearing grease can contain an antioxidant in the range of 0.1-3 mass% with the worked penetration being in the claimed range (see the bottom of page 6 disclosing the antioxidant and the % range and the middle of page 6 which covers a worked penetration of 200-350).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Shibata and replace the grease with any other previously known bearing grease, including one with an antioxidant within the range of 0.1-3 mass % and a worked penetration within the range of 240-300, as taught by Miwa, since substituting between different known bearing greases provides the same predictable result of lubricating the sliding contact surfaces to reduce wear within the device.
Regarding claim 10, Shibata in view of Miwa discloses that the antioxidant is an amine-based antioxidant (see bottom of page 6 of Miwa).
Regarding claim 13, Shibata discloses a sealed rolling bearing comprising: a seal member (8 or 9) that seals a bearing space (space between 10 and 2/3); a fixed side member (10); and a rotating side member (2/3), wherein: the seal member (8 or 9) is fixed to the fixed side member (10) and is configured to be in sliding contact with the rotating side member (both seal elements are attached to the outer ring just like in the instant application, seal 9 also has a slinger element attached to the inner ring just like seal 11 in the instant application), the seal member has a seal lip (13 and 19) that is in sliding contact with the rotating side member, grease (15) is applied to at least one of a sliding contact surface of the seal lip and a sliding contact surface of the rotating side member with which the seal lip is in sliding contact with, the grease contains a base oil and a thickener (see column 8, lines 32-48 and Table 1).
Shibata does not disclose that the grease contains a base oil, a thickener and an antioxidant, the grease contains 0.1 mass% or more and less than 3 mass% of the antioxidant relative to the total amount of the base oil and the thickener, and the worked penetration of the grease measured based on JIS K 2220 is 240-300.
Miwa further teaches that the bearing grease can contain an antioxidant in the range of 0.1-3 mass% with the worked penetration being in the claimed range (see the bottom of page 6 disclosing the antioxidant and the % range and the middle of page 6 which covers a worked penetration of 200-350).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Shibata and replace the grease with any other previously known bearing grease, including one with an antioxidant within the range of 0.1-3 mass % and a worked penetration within the range of 240-300, as taught by Miwa, since substituting between different known bearing greases provides the same predictable result of lubricating the sliding contact surfaces to reduce wear within the device.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata, USP 9,623,703, in view of Imai, JP2007154032.
Regarding claim 8, Shibata further discloses an antirust agent in the form of ester-based antirust agent and a sulfonate-based antirust agent (column 10, lines 21-23 discloses both esters and sulfonates as antirust agents) being added to the grease.
Shibata does not disclose that the grease contains 0.5 mass% or more and less than 1.5 mass% of the antirust agent relative to the total amount of the base oil and the thickener.
Imai teaches a bearing grease wherein antirust agents are added in a range of 0.01 to 10% mass which renders obvious the claimed range (see page 6 of attached translation, paragraph beginning “Other additives include”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Shibata and add the antirust agent within the range of 0.5-1.5 mass%, as taught by Imai, since adding a known additive to a grease within an already known range provides the same predictable result of providing a grease with a desired amount of antirust agent that prevents the formation of rust without degrading the quality of the grease itself.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES PILKINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-5052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7-3.
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.
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617