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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himeno (US 20130182987 A1) in view of Katayama (JP 2012210811 A) and in further view of Allen (US 4541739 A) and in further view of Ueno (JPH0842574A).
Regarding claim 12, Himeno discloses (in annotated fig. 1 and fig. 2) a method of forming a cage (1) for a bearing (4) having an inner ring (5),
an outer ring (6) and a plurality of rolling elements (7) disposed between the inner (5) and outer rings (6),
the method comprising the steps of:
providing a tube of a composite material (para. [0080], pipe is made of the composite material),
the composite material including a polymer base (para. [0038] discloses the cage contains a high-polymer compound), reinforcing fibers and a lubricant (para. [0063] discloses carbon nano-fibers for reinforcing fibers and molybdenum disulfide for lubricant. Para. [0067] discloses that the carbon fibers are in a form of a bundle; however, since there is no definition in the specification that excludes individual fibers contained in a bundle, which allows the carbon nano-fibers reads on this limitation).
cutting the tube to provide at least one annular body having a desired axial length of the cage; and machining a plurality of pockets in the annular body spaced circumferentially about a centerline of the body, each pocket extending radially between the inner surface of the body and the outer surface of the body (para. [0080-0081] discloses that the material is shaped into a pipe and can use a shaping method called sheet winding to form a long cylindrical member in their desired form according to a mandrel. Then the long cylindrical member is cut into short cylindrical annual member for the cage and the plurality of pocket holes are formed by machine processing. The cage will then end up being similar to the instant application’s cage.)
the composite material including a polymer base (para. [0038] discloses the cage contains a high-polymer compound), reinforcing fibers and a lubricant (para. [0063] discloses carbon nano-fibers for reinforcing fibers and molybdenum disulfide for lubricant. Para. [0067] discloses that the carbon fibers are in a form of a bundle; however, since there is no definition in the specification that excludes individual fibers contained in a bundle, the carbon nano-fibers reads on this limitation).
Himeno does not disclose the cage is made of a composite material being formed of a mixture of a polymer base of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene and a plurality of individual reinforcing fiber strands and a lubricant mixed into the polymer base.
Katayama teaches (in fig. 5) the cage (11) is made of a composite material being formed of a mixture of a polymer base of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (para. [0060] discloses the synthetic resin can be ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene used alone) and a plurality of individual reinforcing fiber strands (para. [0062] discloses blending in a fibrous reinforcing fiber like carbon fiber, which has individual fiber strands) and a lubricant mixed into the polymer base (para. [0064] teaches that a solid lubricant like molybdenum disulfide can be blended in) for the purpose of having a cage with sufficient heat resistance and mechanical strength (para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the composite material of the cage of Himeno with the composite material of the cage as taught by Katayama for the purpose of having a cage with sufficient heat resistance and mechanical strength (Katayama para. [0060]). It has also 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.
Himeno in view of Katayama does not teach machining the outer surface of the tube to a desired outside diameter of the cage and the inner surface of the tube to a desired inside diameter of the cage.
Allen teaches machining the outer surface of the tube to a desired outside diameter of the cage and the inner surface of the tube to a desired inside diameter of the cage for the purpose of forming the desired cage configuration and providing for the formation of controlled size, orientation, and desired lubricant reservoirs (col. 1, lines 55-64 teaches machining a ball cage blank to a desired configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to machine the tube body of Himeno in view of Katayama, as taught by Allen for the purpose forming the desired cage configuration and providing for the formation of controlled size, orientation, and desired lubricant reservoirs (col. 1, lines 55-64 teaches machining a ball cage blank to a desired configuration).
Himeno in view of Katayama and in further view of Allen does not teach after machining the plurality of pockets, machining at least one groove inwardly into an inner surface of at least one of the pockets so as to extend circumferentially and continuously about at least a portion of a perimeter of each pocket, the groove being configured to contain lubricant.
Ueno teaches (in fig. 2) after machining the plurality of pockets (5), machining at least one groove (6) inwardly into an inner surface of at least one of the pockets (5) so as to extend circumferentially and continuously about at least a portion of a perimeter of each pocket (5, para. [0013] discloses grooves are formed after or with the pockets and the grooves can be formed by the drilling process, which is a machining process), the groove being configured to contain lubricant for the purpose of having grooves that retain grease or oil (para. [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have machined grooves, as taught by Ueno, in the in cage of Himeno in view of Katayama and in further view of Allen, for the purpose of having grooves that retain grease or oil (para. [0014]).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himeno (US 20130182987 A1) in view of Katayama (JP 2012210811 A) and in further view of Allen (US 4541739 A) and in further view of Ueno (JPH0842574A) and in further view of Kuzbeck (WO 2011006856 A2).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Himeno in view of Katayama and in further view of Allen and in further view of Ueno teaches the method as recited in claim 12, wherein: an amount of the reinforcing fiber strands in the composite material is between ten percent by weight and thirty percent by weight (Katayama para. [0063] discloses the carbon fiber amount is between 15 to 40%, which is inclusive of the claimed range) but does not teach an amount of the lubricant in the composite material is between one-half percent by weight and ten percent by weight (claim 14) or about five percent by weight (claim 15).
Kuzbeck teaches an amount of the lubricant in the composite material is between one-half percent by weight and ten percent by weight (para. [0014] discloses the solid lubricant, which can be molybdenum disulfide, can be up to 30%, which is inclusive of the claimed range) for the purpose of creating a rolling bearing cage made out of fiber composition material that can be used at very high speeds and be cost effective (para. [0009]).
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 amount of lubricant, as taught by Kuzbeck, in the composite material of Himeno in view of Katayama and in further view of Allen and in further view of Ueno for the purpose of creating a rolling bearing cage made out of fiber composition material that can be used at very high speeds and be cost effective (Kuzbeck para. [0009]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himeno (US 20130182987 A1) in view of Katayama (JP 2012210811 A) and in further view of Allen (US 4541739 A) and in further view of Ueno (JPH0842574A) and in further view of Haupert (US 20050181194 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Himeno in view of Katayama and in further view of Allen and in further view of Ueno teaches the method as recited in claim 12, wherein the reinforcing fiber strands include carbon fibers and the lubricant includes molybdenum disulfide but does not teach the carbon fiber strands are short strand carbon fiber.
Haupert teaches the reinforcing fiber strands includes short strand carbon fibers for the purpose of improving thermal conductivity of the bearing (para. [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the carbon fibers of Himeno in view of Katayama and in further view of Allen and in further view of Ueno with the short strand carbon fibers, as taught by Haupert, for the purpose of improving thermal conductivity of the bearing (para. [0014]).
Alternative rejection #1
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himeno (US 20130182987 A1) in view of Katayama (JP 2012210811 A) and in further view of Allen (US 4541739 A) and in further view of Katsuno (JP2013053743A).
Regarding claim 12, Himeno discloses (in annotated fig. 1 and fig. 2) a method of forming a cage (1) for a bearing (4) having an inner ring (5),
an outer ring (6) and a plurality of rolling elements (7) disposed between the inner (5) and outer rings (6),
the method comprising the steps of:
providing a tube of a composite material (para. [0080], pipe is made of the composite material),
the composite material including a polymer base (para. [0038] discloses the cage contains a high-polymer compound), reinforcing fibers and a lubricant (para. [0063] discloses carbon nano-fibers for reinforcing fibers and molybdenum disulfide for lubricant. Para. [0067] discloses that the carbon fibers are in a form of a bundle; however, since there is no definition in the specification that excludes individual fibers contained in a bundle, which allows the carbon nano-fibers reads on this limitation).
cutting the tube to provide at least one annular body having a desired axial length of the cage; and machining a plurality of pockets in the annular body spaced circumferentially about a centerline of the body, each pocket extending radially between the inner surface of the body and the outer surface of the body (para. [0080-0081] discloses that the material is shaped into a pipe and can use a shaping method called sheet winding to form a long cylindrical member in their desired form according to a mandrel. Then the long cylindrical member is cut into short cylindrical annual member for the cage and the plurality of pocket holes are formed by machine processing. The cage will then end up being similar to the instant application’s cage.)
the composite material including a polymer base (para. [0038] discloses the cage contains a high-polymer compound), reinforcing fibers and a lubricant (para. [0063] discloses carbon nano-fibers for reinforcing fibers and molybdenum disulfide for lubricant. Para. [0067] discloses that the carbon fibers are in a form of a bundle; however, since there is no definition in the specification that excludes individual fibers contained in a bundle, the carbon nano-fibers reads on this limitation).
Himeno does not disclose the cage is made of a composite material being formed of a mixture of a polymer base of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene and a plurality of individual reinforcing fiber strands and a lubricant mixed into the polymer base.
Katayama teaches (in fig. 5) the cage (11) is made of a composite material being formed of a mixture of a polymer base of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (para. [0060] discloses the synthetic resin can be ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene used alone) and a plurality of individual reinforcing fiber strands (para. [0062] discloses blending in a fibrous reinforcing fiber like carbon fiber, which has individual fiber strands) and a lubricant mixed into the polymer base (para. [0064] teaches that a solid lubricant like molybdenum disulfide can be blended in) for the purpose of having a cage with sufficient heat resistance and mechanical strength (para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the composite material of the cage of Himeno with the composite material of the cage as taught by Katayama for the purpose of having a cage with sufficient heat resistance and mechanical strength (Katayama para. [0060]). It has also 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.
Himeno in view of Katayama does not teach machining the outer surface of the tube to a desired outside diameter of the cage and the inner surface of the tube to a desired inside diameter of the cage.
Allen teaches machining the outer surface of the tube to a desired outside diameter of the cage and the inner surface of the tube to a desired inside diameter of the cage for the purpose of forming the desired cage configuration and providing for the formation of controlled size, orientation, and desired lubricant reservoirs (col. 1, lines 55-64 teaches machining a ball cage blank to a desired configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to machine the tube body of Himeno in view of Katayama, as taught by Allen for the purpose forming the desired cage configuration and providing for the formation of controlled size, orientation, and desired lubricant reservoirs (col. 1, lines 55-64 teaches machining a ball cage blank to a desired configuration).
Himeno in view of Katayama and in further view of Allen does not teach after machining the plurality of pockets, machining at least one groove inwardly into an inner surface of at least one of the pockets so as to extend circumferentially and continuously about at least a portion of a perimeter of each pocket, the groove being configured to contain lubricant.
Katsuno teaches (in figs. 2(a) and 2(b)) after machining the plurality of pockets (15), machining at least one groove (24) inwardly into an inner surface of at least one of the pockets (15) so as to extend circumferentially and continuously about at least a portion of a perimeter of each pocket (15, para. [0024] discloses grooves are formed by machining), the groove being configured to contain lubricant for the purpose storing grease in the grooves to help maintain proper lubrication between the balls and the pockets (para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have machined grooves, as taught by Katsuno, in the in cage of Himeno in view of Katayama and in further view of Allen, for the purpose storing grease in the grooves to help maintain proper lubrication between the balls and the pockets (para. [0026]).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himeno (US 20130182987 A1) in view of Katayama (JP 2012210811 A) and in further view of Allen (US 4541739 A) and in further view of Katsuno (JP2013053743A) and in further view of Kuzbeck (WO 2011006856 A2).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Himeno in view of Katayama and in further view of Allen and in further view of Katsuno teaches the method as recited in claim 12, wherein: an amount of the reinforcing fiber strands in the composite material is between ten percent by weight and thirty percent by weight (Katayama para. [0063] discloses the carbon fiber amount is between 15 to 40%, which is inclusive of the claimed range) but does not teach an amount of the lubricant in the composite material is between one-half percent by weight and ten percent by weight (claim 14) or about five percent by weight (claim 15).
Kuzbeck teaches an amount of the lubricant in the composite material is between one-half percent by weight and ten percent by weight (para. [0014] discloses the solid lubricant, which can be molybdenum disulfide, can be up to 30%, which is inclusive of the claimed range) for the purpose of creating a rolling bearing cage made out of fiber composition material that can be used at very high speeds and be cost effective (para. [0009]).
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 amount of lubricant, as taught by Kuzbeck, in the composite material of Himeno in view of Katayama and in further view of Allen and in further view of Katsuno for the purpose of creating a rolling bearing cage made out of fiber composition material that can be used at very high speeds and be cost effective (Kuzbeck para. [0009]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himeno (US 20130182987 A1) in view of Katayama (JP 2012210811 A) and in further view of Allen (US 4541739 A) and in further view of Katsuno (JP2013053743A) and in further view of Haupert (US 20050181194 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Himeno in view of Katayama and in further view of Allen and in further view of Katsuno teaches the method as recited in claim 12, wherein the reinforcing fiber strands include carbon fibers and the lubricant includes molybdenum disulfide but does not teach the carbon fiber strands are short strand carbon fiber.
Haupert teaches the reinforcing fiber strands includes short strand carbon fibers for the purpose of improving thermal conductivity of the bearing (para. [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the carbon fibers of Himeno in view of Katayama and in further view of Allen and in further view of Katsuno with the short strand carbon fibers, as taught by Haupert, for the purpose of improving thermal conductivity of the bearing (para. [0014]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12 and 14-16 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.
In page 4, Applicant argued that Allen does not teach “machining the outer surface of the tube to a desired outside diameter of the cage and the inner surface of the tube to a desired inside diameter of the cage.” However, one skilled in the art understands that Allen teaching “machining the cage blank to a desired configuration” to be inclusive of the final size.
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