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 § 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) 1-3, 8, 9 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hauvespre, DE102019201751.
Regarding claim 1, Hauvespre discloses a first bearing assembly component (5) configured to be connected to a second bearing assembly component (17, while 17 is disclosed as a pulley it still forms a bearing housing element and thus is a second component of a bearing assembly), the first bearing assembly component (5) having a contact surface (16/37/38) configured to frictionally engage a counter-contact surface (inner surface of 17) of the second bearing assembly component (17) to secure the first bearing assembly component to the second bearing assembly component, wherein the first bearing assembly component is a metal bearing assembly component (see bottom of page 3 of attached translation discussing the use of metal blanks to make the bearing rings), and wherein the contact surface includes at least one embossed structure formed by deforming the contact surface without adding or removing material from the first bearing assembly component (embossed is a product-by-process recitation, see MPEP 2113, the resulting structure being a grooved or textured surface however grooved or textured surfaces can be made using a number of different methods including embossing, milling/cutting etc., thus “embossed structure” does not impart any unique structure, however Hauvespre discloses in on the top of page 3 of the translation and the 4th paragraph on page 5 that discloses that the surface feature 37 and 38 can be knurls, knurls are produced by the process of knurling which is an embossing process, the disclosure of “knurling process” in general covers all forms of making a knurled surface which can include processes that do not remove material but rather simply deform it, see Remarks below).
Regarding claim 2, Hauvespre discloses that the at least one embossed structure comprises an embossed pattern (Hauvespre discloses a grid pattern or straight pattern, the recitation of the claim does not limit the device to any specific pattern, the more specific disclosure of a knurling pattern in Hauvespre is also an embossed pattern).
Regarding claim 3, Hauvespre discloses that the at least one embossed structure includes depressions and protuberances (see figure 2 showing projections and grooves).
Regarding claim 8, Hauvespre discloses that the contact surface is mechanically finished (like “embossed” the phrase “mechanically finished” is a product by process recitation, however knurling is a mechanical process that finishes a surface by embossing a pattern into it).
Regarding claim 9, Hauvespre discloses a bearing assembly comprising: a first bearing assembly component (5) according to claim 1; and the second bearing assembly component (17) connected to the first bearing component with the contact surface in contact with the counter-contact surface (see figures 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 20, Hauvespre discloses a method comprising: mechanically finishing a metal contact surface of a first bearing assembly component (5, see bottom of page 3 of attached translation discussing the use of metal blanks to make the bearing rings) such that it is connectable in a friction fit manner to a second bearing assembly component (17) having a counter-contact surface, and embossing (knurling) at least one structure (37/38) on the metal contact surface in a manner that does not add or remove material from the fist bearing assembly component (knurling is an embossing process that does not remove material, see Remarks below).
Regarding claim 21, Hauvespre discloses the step of connecting the first bearing component to the second bearing assembly component in the friction fit manner (17 and 5 are pressed together and the knurling holds the parts together in order to assembly the final product).
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) 5-7, 10 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauvespre, DE102019201751, in view of Yamashita, USP 4,792,244.
Regarding claim 5, Hauvespre, while disclosing embossed structure and that the surface can have different patterns (top of page 5 of the translation), the structure or specifics of the pattern are not clearly illustrated, while appearing to possible include linear portions Hauvespre does not explicitly disclose that the pattern specifically has linear portions extending in an axial direction.
Yamashita teaches that a friction increasing textured surface comprises a pattern having linear portions extending in an axial direction (see figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Hauvespre and use any previously known pattern that performs the same function, including one having linear portions extending in the axial direction, as taught by Yamashita, since substituting between different known textured patterns that are used to increase the holding force between two parts provides the same predictable result of holding the objects together using the friction generated as a result of the textured pattern.
Regarding claim 6, Hauvespre, while disclosing embossed structure and that the surface can have different patterns (top of page 5 of the translation), the structure or specifics of the pattern are not clearly illustrated and thus Hauvespre does not explicitly disclose that the pattern includes linear portions extending obliquely to a circumferential direction of the first bearing assembly component and to an axial direction of the first bearing assembly component.
Yamashita teaches that an embossed structure can comprise an embossed pattern having linear portions extending obliquely to a circumferential direction of the first bearing assembly component and to an axial direction of the first bearing assembly component (see figures 4b and 5b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Hauvespre and use any previously known pattern that performs the same function, including one having linear portions extending obliquely to a circumferential direction and to an axial direction of the assembly, as taught by Yamashita, since substituting between different known textured patterns that are used to increase the holding force between two parts provides the same predictable result of holding the objects together using the friction generated as a result of the textured pattern.
Regarding claim 7, Hauvespre, while disclosing embossed structure and that the surface can have different patterns (top of page 5 of the translation), the structure or specifics of the pattern are not clearly illustrated and thus Hauvespre does not explicitly disclose that the pattern comprises a zig-zap pattern.
Yamashita teaches that an embossed structure can comprise a zig-zag pattern (the pattern in figure 5b can be viewed as a series of zig-zag lines that extend in the circumferential or axial direction that meet with adjacent lines at apexes in the zig-zag pattern).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Hauvespre and use any previously known pattern that performs the same function, including one having a zig-zag pattern, as taught by Yamashita, since substituting between different known textured patterns that are used to increase the holding force between two parts provides the same predictable result of hold the objects together using the friction generated as a result of the textured pattern.
Regarding claims 10 and 22, Hauvespre does not disclose that, either in the product or in the method, the first bearing component comprises a bearing inner ring, and wherein the contact surface is a radially inner surface of the bearing inner ring.
Yamashita teaches that embossed patterns can be applied to a first bearing component (2) that comprises a bearing inner ring (2 is the inner ring), and wherein the contact surface is a radially inner surface of the bearing inner ring (6 is applied to the radially inner surface of 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Hauvespre and apply the patterned surface to any configuration where the parts are pressed together and held by friction, including a bearing inner ring with the contact surface being a radially inner surface of the bearing inner ring, as taught by Yamashita, since applying a friction increasing pattern to any previously known configuration where parts are pressed together and held by friction provides the same predictable result of forming an assembled configuration that resists separation.
Claim(s) 11-13, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauvespre, DE102019201751.
Regarding claim 11, Hauvespre discloses a method comprising: providing a first bearing assembly component (5) having a mechanically finished contact surface (mechanically finished is not limited to any particular method, all finally produced products have gone through some process that can be considered as mechanically finished) configured to be connected in a friction fit manner to a second bearing assembly component (17) having a counter-contact surface, and embossing (knurling) at least one structure (37/38) on the contact surface, wherein the embossing does not add or remove material from the fist bearing assembly component (knurling is an embossing process that does not remove material, see Remarks below).
Hauvespre, while further disclosing metal products at the bottom of page 3 of the attached translation, does not explicitly disclose steel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Hauvespre and use any previously known metal material, including steel, 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 12, Hauvespre discloses that the embossing comprises generating impressions and protuberances in the contact surface (generating the groove or groove pattern 37/38 creates impressions, bottom of the groove, and protuberances, material between adjacent grooves).
Regarding claim 13, Hauvespre discloses that the embossing comprises knurling the contact surface (Hauvespre discloses that the surface can be a knurled surface, see at least the top of page 5 of the attached translation).
Regarding claim 16, Hauvespre discloses including mounting the first bearing component to the second bearing component in a friction fit manner with the contact surface in contact with the counter-contact surface (the two bearing components 5 and 17 are pressed together at the end of the process to form the final product), wherein the embossing is a final mechanical processing step before the mounting (embossing a surface is a step that is carried out after all other processes to shape the part are carried out or in other words the ring of the bearing must first be machined in order to make the part, after the part is made then any subsequent machining to finish the surface would be performed, surface finishing is a final machining process and includes processes like knurling).
Regarding claim 18, Hauvespre, as applied to claim 20 above, is silent with regards to the use of any particular machine and thus does not disclose that the mechanical finishing step and the embossing are performed while the first bearing component is held by a same machine.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to either move the bearing element from machine to machine in the manufacturing process or hold the bearing in the same machine and change out the tool element as these are the only two options in making any part (the part is held in one machine and worked on by multiple tooling elements or the part is moved along an assembly line to different machines that perform one function). Ultimately the use of one processing machine or two or more is a selection between a finite number of two options (one machine or more than one machine) and one having ordinary skill in the art has the knowledge to pursue known options within his/her technical grasp. Keeping the product in one machine or moving between different machines ultimately does not change the actual machining steps and keeping the part in one machine provides the predictable result of reducing manufacturing time as the part does not need to be transferred from one machine to the next and remounted prior to the next step of manufacturing.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauvespre, DE102019201751, as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Metten, DE 102021109281.
Regarding claim 17, Hauvespre does not disclose applying a coating to the contact surface after the embossing.
Metten teaches that prior to installing a bearing element with a knurled surface (24) the element can be sprayed with a coating (11, see claim 1 of attached translation) in order to provide an electrically insulating material to the bearing (purpose of an electrically insulating material which Metten is teaching).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hauvespre and provide an additional step of spraying a coating onto the knurled surface, as taught by Metten, in order to provide an electrically insulating material to the bearing to insulate the bearing from the passage of electrical current which can ultimately damage the bearing.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauvespre, DE102019201751, as applied to claims 16 above, in view of Yamashita, USP 4,792,244.
Regarding claims 19, Hauvespre does not disclose that the first bearing component comprises a bearing inner ring, and wherein the contact surface is a radially inner surface of the bearing inner ring.
Yamashita teaches that embossed patterns can be applied to a first bearing component (2) that comprises a bearing inner ring (2 is the inner ring), and wherein the contact surface is a radially inner surface of the bearing inner ring (6 is applied to the radially inner surface of 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Hauvespre and apply the patterned surface to any configuration where the parts are pressed together and held by friction, including a bearing inner ring with the contact surface being a radially inner surface of the bearing inner ring, as taught by Yamashita, since applying a friction increasing pattern to any previously known configuration where parts are pressed together and held by friction provides the same predictable result of forming an assembled configuration that resists separation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-13 and 16-22 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.
The new grounds of rejection were necessitated by the introduction of metal or steel to the claims as this overcome the previously applied art that specifically used ceramic, however Applicant places addition emphasis on the “without adding or removing material”. While the currently applied art does not explicitly say “without adding or removing material” the processed disclosed therein is knurling which is a process that does result in a textured pattern without adding or removing material.
Applicant’s attention is directed to the attached NPL document which discusses knurling processes, specifically the portion “How Does Knurling Work?” which states knurling is a process that does not cut material but rather displaces it, in other words material is not added or removed during knurling.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 s
Prosecution Insights