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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 17, 2025 has been entered.
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) 1-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen, USP 3,904,254, in view of Toda, JP2005-256893.
Regarding claim 1, Hagen discloses a rolling element cage (60) for a linear guide system comprising two receiving portions (made of 64/68) and a connecting portion (62) connecting the two receiving portions, wherein each of the two receiving portions comprises two extended top surfaces (larger flat surfaces that each ball pocket/opening 70 passes through, these surfaces correspond to the top surfaces 7 and 8 in the instant application), wherein the two receiving portions each comprise a plurality of apertures (70), wherein each aperture comprises a side surface (side wall of pocket 70) connecting the two top surfaces, wherein at least one of a plurality of bearing rolling elements (72) is receivable in one of the plurality of apertures (70) of the rolling element cage (60), so that the side surface of the aperture or a transition between one of the two top surfaces and the side surface can be brought into contact with a rolling element surface of the bearing rolling element receivable in the aperture (the rolling element, even if the pocket is oversized, will contact at least a portion of the sidewall of the pocket during operation).
However, Hagen does not disclose any specific details of the rolling element pocket and thus does not disclose that each aperture is a through hole through the two top surfaces, wherein the outer extent of the through hole is a side surface connecting the two top surfaces (directly connecting the two surfaces) and that the transition between one of the two top surfaces and the side surface comprises, at least in sections, a broken edge (as argued by Applicant in the remarks filed October 8, 2025, this term defines an edge that is not sharp, for example chamfered or rounded).
Toda teaches that a rolling element pocket of a retaining cage in a bearing can be made in the form of a through hole that directly connects the two opposing surfaces of the cage (15/19 form the hole in a similar manner as the side walls and broken edge for the hole in the instant application) with a transition between the cage pocket surface formed as a chamfered surface (19), and thus a broken edge as defined by Applicant, for the purpose of widening the region where lubricant is received to allow the lubricant to easily flow to the balls (in other words the chamfer forms a channeling/funneling feature that collects a larger amount of lubricant and channels it towards the balls, 2nd paragraph on page 7 of the attached translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Hagen and use any previously known pocket geometry for a rolling element cage of a bearing, including one where the sidewall directly connects the two top surfaces of the cage and the transition between a surface of the cage and the side wall of the pocket is formed by a chamfer, as taught by Toda, for the purpose of widening the region where lubricant is received to allow the lubricant to easily flow to the balls. Such a modification would have further been obvious since substituting between different known cage pocket geometries provides the same predicable result of guiding the relative movement of the rolling elements within the bearing so that they maintain the proper spacing. Regardless of the pocket shape the pocket performs the same function.
Regarding claim 2, Hagen discloses that the rolling element cage (60) consists of sheet material (the cage in Hagen is a folded piece of material which is made by shaping a sheet product). However, Hagen does not disclose that the material is specifically sheet metal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Hagen and make the cage out of sheet metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 3-5, each of these claims is defining how the cage element is made or “obtained”, these are all product by process recitations that do not limit the claim to any particular structure, see MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 6, Hagen nor Toda disclose any particular material, other than the generical disclosure of metal in Toda (page 7 2nd paragraph) for the cage element and thus do not disclose that the rolling element cage is manufactured from brass or bronze.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Hagen in view of Toda and make the cage out of brass or bronze, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7, Hagen in view of Toda discloses a linear guide system comprising a first rail element (26 or 24 of Hagen) comprising two first running surfaces (at 30 or 50, each rail has a running surface, one at the top of figure 3 and the one that is labeled at the bottom of figure 3), a second rail element (other one of 26 or 24) comprising two second running surfaces (other one of 30 or 50), a rolling element cage (60) according to claim 1, and a plurality of bearing rolling elements (72), wherein at least one of the plurality of bearing rolling elements is received in one of the plurality of apertures (70) of the rolling element cage (60), wherein the side surface of the aperture or the transition between one of the two top surfaces and the side surface is in contact with a rolling element surface of the bearing rolling element received in the aperture (see explanation in claim 1), and wherein the rolling element cage (60) positions the plurality of bearing rolling elements (72) between the first running surfaces of the first rail element and the second running surfaces of the second rail element, so that the first rail element and the second rail element are supported against each other in such a way that the first rail element and the second rail element are linearly displaceable relative to each other in and against a pull-out direction (the rails 24 and 26 translate linearly relative to each other).
Regarding claim 8, Hagen in view of Toda discloses that at least one of the plurality of bearing rolling elements (72 Hagen) is a bearing ball, wherein the bearing ball comprises a plurality of planes of symmetry (all balls have a plurality of planes of symmetry, in fact the number of planes in a smooth ball is infinite), wherein the plurality of planes of symmetry include a straight line extending through the centre of the bearing ball and perpendicular to the pull-out direction (one of the infinite planes of the balls would extend through the center of the ball and be perpendicular to the pull-out direction),wherein the broken edge is either a chamfer that is straight in at least one of the plurality of planes of symmetry (19 in Toda is a chamfer) or the rounding that is curved in at least one of the plurality of planes of symmetry.
Regarding claim 9, while disclosing that the cage is a thin walled bent sheet product, Hagen does not disclose that the rolling element cage comprises a thickness which is at least 5 % of the radius of the bearing rolling element.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to adjust either the thickness of the cage or the radius/diameter of the balls based on size constraints in the bearing assembly, thus resulting in different thickness to ball radius ratios, including a thickness of 5% of the radius of the ball, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed (similar type of bent sheet cage element) in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Hagen discloses a method for manufacturing a rolling element cage (60) for a linear guide system comprising providing a material section (material that makes the cage is a material section), wherein the material section defines two receiving portions (made of 64/68) and a connecting portion (62) of the rolling element cage (60) connecting the two receiving portions (64/68), wherein each of the two receiving portions (64/68) comprises two extended top surfaces (larger flat surfaces that each ball pocket/opening 70 passes through, these surfaces correspond to the top surfaces 7 and 8 in the instant application), wherein the two receiving portions (64/68) each comprise a plurality of apertures (70), wherein each aperture comprises a side surface (side wall of ball pocket) connecting the two top surfaces, and wherein a transition is formed between each of the two top surfaces and the side surface (this portion of the claim does not disclose the type of transition, thus any edge between the surfaces would form a transition and all pockets in a cage element have some form of a transition to the rest of the cage structure).
However, Hagen does not disclose any specific details of the rolling element pocket and thus does not disclose that each aperture is a through hole through the two top surfaces, wherein the outer extent of the through hole is a side surface connecting the two top surfaces (directly connecting the two surfaces) and that the transition between one of the two top surfaces and the side surface comprises, at least in sections, a broken edge nor the step of machining such a transition.
Toda teaches that a rolling element pocket of a retaining cage in a bearing can be made in the form of a through hole that directly connects the two opposing surfaces of the cage (15/19 form the hole in a similar manner as the side walls and broken edge for the hole in the instant application) with a transition between the cage pocket surface formed as a chamfered surface (19), and thus a broken edge as defined by Applicant, for the purpose of widening the region where lubricant is received to allow the lubricant to easily flow to the balls (in other words the chamfer forms a channeling feature that collects a larger amount of lubricant and channels it towards the balls, 2nd paragraph on page 7 of the attached translation). As the pocket is formed with a chamfer a machining process of some type would have been carried out to form the shape, the phrase “machining” is not limited to any type of machining and thus does not provide a distinct method step to distinguish over any manufactured cage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Hagen and use any previously known pocket geometry for a rolling element cage of a bearing, including one where the sidewall directly connects the two top surfaces and the transition between a surface of the cage and the side wall of the pocket is formed by a chamfer by a machining process, as taught by Toda, for the purpose of widening the region where lubricant is received to allow the lubricant to easily flow to the balls. Such a modification would have further been obvious since substituting between different known cage pocket geometries provides the same predicable result of guiding the relative movement of the rolling elements within the bearing so that they maintain the proper spacing. Regardless of the pocket shape the pocket performs the same function.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen, USP 3,904,254, in view of Toda, JP2005256893, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Popescu, DE102017123093.
Hagen in view of Toda does not disclose a specific material combination wherein the rolling element cage is manufactured from a material comprising a smaller hardness than a material from which at least a plurality of the bearing rolling elements is manufactured.
Popescu teaches a cage and roller material combination that includes making the cage element of sheet metal (see page 2, line 17 of attached translation) and making the rolling elements out of ceramic (see page 2, lines 35-36). Ceramics being a class of material with higher hardness than steel and more specifically a higher hardness than sheet metal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Hagen in view of Toda and make the cage from a material that comprises a smaller hardness than that of the rolling element, including using a sheet metal (like in the instant application) and a ceramic roller combination, as taught by Popescu, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In addition, substituting between different known material combinations for a cage and a roller element is not inventive but rather a matter of routine substitution for one known material set for another.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen, USP 3,904,254, in view of Toda, JP2005256893, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ramonat, US PGPub 2004/0223670.
Regarding claim 11, Hagen in view of Toda does not disclose that the linear guide system comprises a plurality of bearing rolling elements and a plurality of lubricant rolling elements, wherein the lubricant rolling elements comprise or consist of a lubricant and wherein the bearing rolling elements are made of a material comprising a larger hardness than the lubricant of the lubricant rolling elements.
Ramonat teaches a linear bearing wherein the arrangement includes a plurality of two different types of rollers, a standard ball bearing element (12) and a lubricant bearing element (18), wherein the lubricant rolling elements comprise or consist of a lubricant (18 is disclosed as being made of PTFE which is a self-lubricating material) and the bearing rolling elements are made of a material (12 is made of a steel material, see paragraph 0031) comprising a larger hardness than the lubricant of the lubricant rolling elements (steel is harder than PTFE) for the purpose of providing a bearing arrangement which has the least possible lubricant expenditure while achieving a long service life (paragraph 0007, using a solid lubricant roller limits or removes the need for any liquid lubricant which would otherwise be expelled from the system during the course of operation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing and modify Hagen in view of Toda and use a plurality of bearing rolling elements and a plurality of lubricant rolling elements, wherein the lubricant rolling elements comprise or consist of a lubricant and wherein the bearing rolling elements are made of a material comprising a larger hardness than the lubricant of the lubricant rolling elements, as taught by Ramonat, for the purpose of providing a bearing arrangement which has the least possible lubricant expenditure while achieving a long service life.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is allowed.
Claims 13, and claims depending therefrom, 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 16 has presented the allowable subject matter of claim 15 in independent format. As stated in prior actions, the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the claimed combination with the additional steps, specifically preformed after the cutting or punching step, of embossing the transition with a separate forming tool and after this embossing step then bending the receiving portions relative to the connecting portion.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record does not disclose machining the transition using one of the four specific processes defined in the claim. The prior art of record general shows that the structure that forms the transition (Toda) and there is no additional process or step required to form the transition, adding an arbitrary process to meet the claim limitation to form the structure already formed by a different process is a matter of impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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