DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12 and 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 April 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 27 November 2023. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8246761 B2 (hereinafter “Volkmuth”).
Regarding claim 1, Volkmuth teaches a method of heat treatment for a workpiece subjected to rolling stress (see title). Volkmuth teaches that the method includes treating a roller bearing made form high alloy steel (see SUMMARY). Volkmuth teaches that the steel ,may be a 100Cr6 steel (SUMMARY, claim 5), or a steel which includes the carbon at 0.8-1.2% by weight (col 4). Thereby Volkmuth clearly envisions a high carbon bearing steel.
Volkmuth describes the heat treatment at Fig. 2 and cols. 5-6. Volkmuth teaches that following a carbonitriding treatment the component is cooled to a room temperature (col 5), reading on step (I). Volkmuth teaches that the component is then heated to austenitize it (col. 5 and Fig 2), reading on step (ii). Volkmuth teaches that the component is quickly cooled to a temperature above the Ms temperature, such as 210-260 C (col 5, Fig 2). The temperature range taught by Volkmuth overlaps the range as claimed, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for that range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have selected a temperature in the range as claimed because Volkmuth teaches the same utility over an overlapping range. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Volkmuth teaches that the component is then is held for a time, such as a time of three to five hours (col 5, Fig 2). The time range taught by Volkmuth overlaps the range as claimed, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for that range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have selected a hold time in the range as claimed because Volkmuth teaches the same utility over an overlapping range. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Volkmuth teaches that the hold at a temperature causes at least a portion of austenite to transform to bainite (cols 5-6). Thereby the process of Volkmuth reads on step (iii) as claimed.
Volkmuth teaches that after the bainitizing, the workpiece is quenched, such as to room temperature in order to form martensite (col. 6 and Fig 2), the same as claim step (iv).
Volkmuth teaches that the parts are then tempered including heated to a temperature, in a range of 150 to 300 C (col. 6 and Fig 2). The temperature range taught by Volkmuth overlaps the range as claimed, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for that range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have selected a temperature in the range as claimed because Volkmuth teaches the same utility over an overlapping range. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05. Volkmuth teaches that the work is cooled (col. 6 and Fig 2). The tempering step reads on step (v) as claimed,
Regarding claim 2, Volkmuth teaches that the component is then is held for a time, such as a time of three to five hours (col 5, Fig 2). The time range taught by Volkmuth overlaps the range as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Volkmuth teaches that further heat treatment steps may be applied as needed, and that the microstructure of the work is carefully controlled (col. 6-7). The repetition of the tempering step would have required no more than a routine investigation of the invention of Volkmuth.
Regarding claim 4, the processing taking place in a furnace is considered to be inherent in the processing of Volkmuth. For example Volkmuth teaches that an atmosphere is applied as needed (col 5). Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 5-6, Volkmuth does not teach that the process of austenitizing through tempering takes less than 24 hours, or less than 22 hours. However, Volkmuth teaches that the bainitixing step is preferably 3 to 5 hours (col. 5 and Fig 2). Volkmuth teaches that the other steps are dependent on the results such as a uniform temperature profile (See cols 3-4). Thus the timing of the steps is a results-effective variable in order tot achieve the desired features (uniform temperature in col 3-4, microstructure and hardness in col 6-7) that the skilled applicant understands are the reasons for heat treatment. The selection of a suitable time for steps (i) through (v) would have been optimized by the skilled artisan through a routine investigation.
Regarding claim 7, Volkmuth teaches that the component is quickly cooled to a temperature above the Ms temperature, such as 210-260 C (col 5, Fig 2). The temperature range taught by Volkmuth overlaps the range as claimed, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for that range.
Regarding claims 8-9, Volkmuth teaches that the parts are then tempered including heated to a temperature, in a range of 150 to 300 C (col. 6 and Fig 2). The temperature range taught by Volkmuth overlaps the range as claimed, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for that range.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8246761 B2 (hereinafter “Volkmuth”), in view of US 20130251298 A1 (hereinafter “Gegner”).
Volkmuth is applied to the claim as stated in the rejection of claim 1. Volkmuth does not teach a tapered troller bearing ring. Volkmuth teaches roller bearing components (Fig 1, claim 3), but does not go into much detail about the components.
Gegner teaches that a bearing component is made by a process including hardening and generating residual stresses (See SUMMARY). Gegner teaches that the method is applied to a tapered roller bearing inner and outer ring such as found in Fig 1 ([0030]). Gegner teaches that such roller bearings are suitable for turbines ([0030]).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have practiced the method of Volkmuth, and to have applied the method to a tapered bearing such as the one shown in Gegner, in order to manufacture the bearing component for a turbine as taught by Gegner (Fig 1, [0030]). The simple substitution of one known element for another in the field of roller bearing manufacture, in order to obtain predictable results, would have been prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is allowed.
Claim 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.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the claimed method including the heat treatment steps (i) thru (v) as detailed above, and further wherein in the cooling and/or quenching, the work is cooled at a rate of 0.5 to 1.0 C per minute down to temperature in a range of 80-100 C.
Volkmuth is the closest prior art as detailed above. There is no description of a slow cooling maintained within the parameters required by claims 10 and 13. Volkmuth teaches that the cooling is a quenching from the bainitic temperature (cols 5-6). While the cooling after the tempering step may be a slow cooling (col. 6-7 and Fig 2), this is not a teaching of cooling at a controlled rate to 80-100 C and then quenching.
US 6203634 B1 (also to Volkmuth) teaches a similar heat treatment regime as presented in US 8246761 B2. US 6203634 B1 teaches that cooling after bainitizing should be done as quickly as possible (col 4, Figs 1-3).
US 6264768 B1 teaches austenitizing followed by a quench to bainitize the work (Fig 1, col 3-4). While US 6264768 B1 teaches a slower cooling rate prior to the quench, this is explained as being a transfer of the work to the quench equipment, rather than a controlled step in the parameters required by the instant claims (col 4).
The feature of controlling cooling after the bainitizing and tempering steps to 0.5 to 1.0 C per minute down to 80-100 C, followed by quenching, appears to be novel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights