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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the synthetic material" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosado et al. (US 5752773 A) in view of Metrikin (US 20140226928 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rosado discloses (in figs. 1-5) a cage (18) for a rolling bearing (10), the cage (18) circumferentially spacing at least one row of rolling elements (16), the cage (18) comprising:
an annular body (26) formed of a fiber-reinforced synthetic material (20, col. 2, lines 53-58 discloses that the cage can include carbon fiber and col. 3, lines 10-17 discloses that the cage can include epoxy, which are the same material combination as the instant application) and including a plurality of circumferentially spaced pockets (pockets holding 16),
each pocket (pockets holding 16) being configured to receive a separate one of the rolling elements (16) of the row.
Rosado does not disclose the fiber-reinforced synthetic material having a glass transition temperature equal to or greater than 120°C.
Metrikin teaches the fiber-reinforced synthetic material having a glass transition temperature equal to or greater than 120°C (para. [0025] discloses that polymer materials like epoxy resin can have a glass transition temperature of 150°C to 350°C. The paragraph also states that various additives may be blended in the material and Rosado already has carbon fibers as a reinforcing fiber) for the purpose of helping avoid wear (para. [0003]). Reinforcing fibers are additives that does not dissolve into the polymer, the class transition temperature would be based on the base polymer.
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 fiber-reinforced synthetic material having a glass transition temperature equal to or greater than 120°C as taught by Metrikin, in the cage of Rosado for the purpose of helping avoid wear (para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Rosado in view of Metrikin teaches the cage according to claim 1, wherein the synthetic material is an epoxy resin having a glass transition temperature between 130°C and 200°C (Rosado col. 3, lines 10-17 discloses that the cage can include epoxy and Metrikin para. [0025] includes the claimed glass temperature range).
Regarding claim 3, Rosado in view of Metrikin teaches the cage according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing fibers (20) are continuous (Rosado fig. 2 shows that the fiber is continuous).
Regarding claim 4, Rosado in view of Metrikin teaches the cage according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing fibers include carbon fibers (Rosado col. 2, lines 53-58 discloses that the cage can include carbon fiber).
Regarding claim 6, Rosado in view of Metrikin teaches (in Rosado fig. 1) a rolling bearing (10) comprising: an inner ring, an outer ring, a cage (18) according to claim 1 mounted between the inner ring (14) and the outer ring (12), and a plurality of rolling elements (16) mounted in respective ones of the plurality of pockets (pockets holding rolling elements 16).
Regarding claim 7, Rosado discloses (in figs. 1-6) a method of manufacturing a cage (18) for a rolling bearing (16), the method comprising the steps of:
forming a cylindrical tube (26) preform by winding continuous fibers pre-impregnated with the synthetic material on a mandrel (22, fig. 3 and col. 2, lines 32-41 and col. 2, lines 53-58 discloses that the cage can include carbon fiber and col. 3, lines 10-17 discloses that the cage can include epoxy, which are the same material combination as the instant application),
molding and polymerizing the tube (22 and col. 3, lines 18-30);
and cutting the formed tube (22) so as to form a plurality of rings (36), each ring (36) having desired dimensions of a cage (18, col. 3, lines 31-38).
Rosado does not disclose the glass transition temperature of the synthetic material being equal to or greater than 120°C.
Metrikin teaches the glass transition temperature of the synthetic material being equal to or greater than 120°C (para. [0025] discloses that polymer materials like epoxy resin can have a glass transition temperature of 150°C to 350°C. The paragraph also states that various additives may be blended in the material and Rosado already has carbon fibers as a reinforcing fiber) for the purpose of helping avoid wear (para. [0003]). Reinforcing fibers are additives that does not dissolve into the polymer, the class transition temperature would be based on the base polymer.
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 glass transition temperature of the synthetic material being equal to or greater than 120°C as taught by Metrikin, in the cage of Rosado for the purpose of helping avoid wear (para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 8, Rosado in view of Metrikin teaches (in Rosado figs. 1-6) the method according to claim 7, further comprising a step of forming pockets (pockets holding 16) within each one of the plurality of cut rings (36) so as to form a rolling element cage (18, col. 3, lines 34-38).
Regarding claim 11, Rosado in view of Metrikin teaches (in Rosado fig. 3) the cage according to claim 1, wherein the annular body (26) is formed by winding a plurality of continuous fibers pre-impregnated with the synthetic material about a mandrel (22).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosado et al. (US 5752773 A) in view of Metrikin (US 20140226928 A1) and in further view of Laugisch et al. (DE 102012218617 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Rosado in view of Metrikin teaches the method according to claim 7 but does not disclose wherein the step of molding and polymerizing the tube includes forming a plurality of circumferentially spaced pockets within the tube.
Laugisch teaches (in fig. 1) the step of molding and polymerizing the tube includes forming a plurality of circumferentially spaced pockets within the tube (para. [0006] teaches the pockets are form during the step of molding and polymerizing the tube with the placeholders where the pockets are).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a plurality of circumferentially spaced pockets within the tube during molding and polymerizing the tube, as taught by Laugisch, in the method of Rosado in view of Metrikin for the purpose of increasing the strength of the material in the region of the webs between adjacent pockets (para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 12, Rosado in view of Metrikin teaches the method according claim 7 but does not disclose forming pockets in the formed tube before cutting the formed tube.
Laugisch teaches forming pockets in the formed tube before cutting the formed tube for the purpose of decreasing cost through eliminating waste of material (para. [0019] teaches placeholders, which are pockets, are formed before the tube is cut to give the cage a defined axial dimension 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form pockets in the formed tube before cutting the formed tube, as taught by Laugisch, in the method of Rosado in view of Metrikin for the purpose of or the purpose of decreasing cost through eliminating waste of material (para. [0019]).
Alternative rejection #1
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pausch et al. (US 20160305481 A1) in view of Metrikin (US 20140226928 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pausch discloses (in figs. 1-2) a cage (1) for a rolling bearing (10), the cage (1) circumferentially spacing at least one row of rolling elements (10), the cage (1) comprising:
an annular body (1) formed of a fiber-reinforced synthetic material (6, 7, and 8 and para. [0017-0018] discloses that the cage can be made out of epoxy and carbon fiber, which is the same material combination as the instant application)
each pocket (5) being configured to receive a separate one of the rolling elements (10) of the row.
Pausch does not disclose the fiber-reinforced synthetic material having a glass transition temperature equal to or greater than 120°C.
Metrikin teaches the fiber-reinforced synthetic material having a glass transition temperature equal to or greater than 120°C (para. [0025] discloses that polymer materials like epoxy resin can have a glass transition temperature of 150°C to 350°C. The paragraph also states that various additives may be blended in the material and Pausch already has carbon fibers as a reinforcing fiber) for the purpose of helping avoid wear (para. [0003]). Reinforcing fibers are additives that does not dissolve into the polymer, the class transition temperature would be based on the base polymer.
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 fiber-reinforced synthetic material having a glass transition temperature equal to or greater than 120°C as taught by Metrikin, in the cage of Pausch for the purpose of helping avoid wear (para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Pausch in view of Metrikin teaches the cage according to claim 1, wherein the synthetic material is an epoxy resin having a glass transition temperature between 130°C and 200°C (Pausch para. [0018] discloses the synthetic material is epoxy resin, which is the same material as the instant application and Metrikin para. [0025] includes the claimed glass temperature range).
Regarding claim 3, Pausch in view of Metrikin teaches the cage according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing fibers are continuous (Pausch para. [0007] discloses that the cage has a continuous fiber).
Regarding claim 4, Pausch in view of Metrikin teaches the cage according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing fibers include carbon fibers (Pausch para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 5, Pausch discloses the cage according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing fibers include at least one of poly-para-phenylene terephthalamide fibers, flax fibers and liquid crystal polymer fibers (para. [0016] discloses flax fiber).
Regarding claim 6, Pausch in view of Metrikin teaches (in Pausch fig. 1) a rolling bearing (9) comprising: an inner ring (11), an outer ring (12), a cage (1) according to claim 1 mounted between the inner ring (11) and the outer ring (12), and a plurality of rolling elements (10) mounted in respective ones of the plurality of pockets (pockets holding rolling elements 10).
Alternative rejection #2
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosado et al. (US 5752773 A) in view of Taguchi (US 6620510 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Rosado discloses (in figs. 1-5) a cage (18) for a rolling bearing (10), the cage (18) circumferentially spacing at least one row of rolling elements (16), the cage (18) comprising:
an annular body (26) formed of a fiber-reinforced synthetic material (20, col. 2, lines 53-58 discloses that the cage can include carbon fiber and col. 3, lines 10-17 discloses that the cage can include epoxy, which are the same material combination as the instant application) and including a plurality of circumferentially spaced pockets (pockets holding 16),
each pocket (pockets holding 16) being configured to receive a separate one of the rolling elements (16) of the row.
Rosado does not disclose the fiber-reinforced synthetic material having a glass transition temperature equal to or greater than 120°C.
Taguchi teaches the fiber-reinforced synthetic material having a glass transition temperature equal to or greater than 120°C (col. 13, lines 61-col. 14, lines 3 teaches that epoxy resin with reinforcing fiber can have a glass transition temperature of 150°C to 200°C and col. 12, lines 63-col. 13, lines 3 teaches the reinforcing fiber can be carbon fiber) for the purpose of having resistant to severe high temperature and high humidity conditions.
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 fiber-reinforced synthetic material having a glass transition temperature equal to or greater than 120°C, as taught by Taguchi, in the cage of Rosado for the purpose of having resistant to severe high temperature and high humidity conditions (col. 13, lines 63-col. 14 lines 3).
Regarding claim 2, Rosado in view of Taguchi teaches the cage according to claim 1, wherein the synthetic material is an epoxy resin having a glass transition temperature between 130°C and 200°C (Rosado col. 3, lines 10-17 discloses that the cage can include epoxy and Taguchi col. 13, lines 63-col. 14 lines 3 includes the claimed glass temperature range).
Regarding claim 3, Rosado in view of Taguchi teaches the cage according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing fibers (20) are continuous (Rosado fig. 2 shows that the fiber is continuous).
Regarding claim 4, Rosado in view of Taguchi teaches the cage according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing fibers include carbon fibers (Rosado col. 2, lines 53-58 discloses that the cage can include carbon fiber).
Regarding claim 6, Rosado in view of Taguchi teaches (in Rosado fig. 1) a rolling bearing (10) comprising: an inner ring, an outer ring, a cage (18) according to claim 1 mounted between the inner ring (14) and the outer ring (12), and a plurality of rolling elements (16) mounted in respective ones of the plurality of pockets (pockets holding rolling elements 16).
Regarding claim 7, Rosado discloses (in figs. 1-6) a method of manufacturing a cage (18) for a rolling bearing (16), the method comprising the steps of:
forming a cylindrical tube (26) preform by winding continuous fibers pre-impregnated with the synthetic material on a mandrel (22, fig. 3 and col. 2, lines 32-41 and col. 2, lines 53-58 discloses that the cage can include carbon fiber and col. 3, lines 10-17 discloses that the cage can include epoxy, which are the same material combination as the instant application),
molding and polymerizing the tube (22 and col. 3, lines 18-30);
and cutting the formed tube (22) so as to form a plurality of rings (36), each ring (36) having desired dimensions of a cage (18, col. 3, lines 31-38).
Rosado does not disclose the glass transition temperature of the synthetic material being equal to or greater than 120°C.
Taguchi teaches the glass transition temperature of the synthetic material being equal to or greater than 120°C (col. 13, lines 61-col. 14, lines 3 teaches that epoxy resin with reinforcing fiber can have a glass transition temperature of 150°C to 200°C and col. 12, lines 63-col. 13, lines 3 teaches the reinforcing fiber can be carbon fiber) for the purpose of having resistant to severe high temperature and high humidity conditions.
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 glass transition temperature of the synthetic material being equal or greater than 120°C, as taught by Taguchi, in the cage of Rosado for the purpose of having resistant to severe high temperature and high humidity conditions (col. 13, lines 63-col. 14 lines 3).
Regarding claim 8, Rosado in view of Taguchi teaches (in Rosado figs. 1-6) the method according to claim 7, further comprising a step of forming pockets (pockets holding 16) within each one of the plurality of cut rings (36) so as to form a rolling element cage (18, col. 3, lines 34-38).
Regarding claim 11, Rosado in view of Taguchi teaches (in Rosado fig. 3) the cage according to claim 1, wherein the annular body (26) is formed by winding a plurality of continuous fibers pre-impregnated with the synthetic material about a mandrel (22).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosado et al. (US 5752773 A) in view of Taguchi (US 6620510 B1) and in further view of Laugisch et al. (DE 102012218617 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Rosado in view of Taguchi teaches the method according to claim 7 but does not disclose wherein the step of molding and polymerizing the tube includes forming a plurality of circumferentially spaced pockets within the tube.
Laugisch teaches (in fig. 1) the step of molding and polymerizing the tube includes forming a plurality of circumferentially spaced pockets within the tube (para. [0006] teaches the pockets are form during the step of molding and polymerizing the tube with the placeholders where the pockets are).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a plurality of circumferentially spaced pockets within the tube during molding and polymerizing the tube, as taught by Laugisch, in the method of Rosado in view of Taguchi for the purpose of increasing the strength of the material in the region of the webs between adjacent pockets (para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 12, Rosado in view of Taguchi teaches the method according claim 7 but does not disclose forming pockets in the formed tube before cutting the formed tube.
Laugisch teaches forming pockets in the formed tube before cutting the formed tube for the purpose of decreasing cost through eliminating waste of material (para. [0019] teaches placeholders, which are pockets, are formed before the tube is cut to give the cage a defined axial dimension 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form pockets in the formed tube before cutting the formed tube, as taught by Laugisch, in the method of Rosado in view of Taguchi for the purpose of or the purpose of decreasing cost through eliminating waste of material (para. [0019]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-2, filed 01/23/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 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: the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the combination set forth in claim 10.
In particular, for claim 10, the prior art of record does not disclose the method of manufacturing a cage for a rolling bearing where the mandrel includes a plurality of circumferential rows of protrusions extending radially outwardly from a remainder of the mandrel, each row comprising a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart protrusions and the plurality of rows being spaced apart axially from each other in combination with other claim limitations.
Conclusion
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
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights