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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the character of the lines, numbers, and letters are not sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well-defined as required by MPEP §608.02(V)(l). Figures 2 and 5-6 are of poor quality. The graphs of Fig. 5-6 are illegible.
The examiner points out that the USPTO website has guidelines on how to submit drawing images for the best results. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-pdf-guidelines. Specifically, see the section which states:
It is recommended to use images saved in a lossless format (e.g., TIFF, PNG, GIF, BMP). It is strongly recommended that the PDF creation software does not downsample images during the PDF creation process, as this could degrade the quality of the image.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites “an axial length of each of the radially outer and inner first claws is greater than half the length of the major axis of the ellipsoidal shape of the first pocket.” This limitation is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. The drawings do not show this feature. Furthermore, the drawings are not said to be to scale and therefore cannot be relied upon for relative measurements. Thus, the limitation is considered new matter.
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 1-3, 6-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann WO 87-04502 in view of Adane WO 2010-066293.
Re clm 1, Herrmann discloses a cage (Fig. 3) for a bearing comprising: a first pocket (10) configured to accommodate a first rolling element (2) of the bearing, the first pocket arranged to completely enclose the first rolling element where a pitch circle of the cage is located (shown in Fig. 3), the first pocket having a first side wall (at 10, Fig. 3): a radially outer first claw (for example, right side 11s; [0005]) and a radially inner first claw (left side 11s) for holding the first rolling element of the bearing after the first rolling element is assembled in the first pocket, the radially outer first claw extending from the first side wall of the first pocket toward the radially outer side of the cage, the radially inner first claw extending from the first side wall of the first pocket toward the radially inner side of the cage an inner side of each of the radially outer and radially inner first claws and the first side wall of the first pocket together form the shape of the first pocket (front bisected pocket shows 11s forming same shape as pocket 10, Fig. 3); a second pocket (adjacent pockets 10) next to the first pocket, the second pocket configured to accommodate a second rolling element (an adjacent 2) of the bearing, the second pocket arranged to completely enclose the second rolling element where the pitch circle of the cage is located, the second pocket having a second side wall (at 10): a radially outer second claw (for example, right side 11s; [0005]) and a radially inner second claw (left 11s) for holding the second rolling element of the bearing after the second rolling element is assembled in the second pocket, the radially outer second claw extending from the second side wall of the second pocket toward the radially outer side of the cage, the radially inner second claw extending from the second side wall of the second pocket toward the radially inner side of the cage, the radially outer first claw and the radially outer second claw being next to one another, the radially inner first claw and the radially inner second claw being next to one another; a radially outer gap (gap between adjacent 11s on right side) between the radially outer first claw and the radially outer second claw and a radially inner gap (gap between adjacent 11s on left side) between the radially inner first claw and the radially inner second claw, the radially outer gap and the radially inner gap being radially aligned relative to one another (Fig. 1 and 3).
Herrmann does not disclose the first pocket having a roughly ellipsoidal shape, the ellipsoidal shape of the first pocket having a major axis L1 and a minor axis L2, the major axis L1 and the minor axis L2 satisfying the following relationship: L2 <L11.07L2, the second pocket having a roughly ellipsoidal shape, the ellipsoidal shape of the second pocket having a major axis L1 and a minor axis L2, the major axis L1 and the minor axis L2 of the second pocket satisfying the following relationship: L2 < L1 < 1.07L2.
Adane teaches a bearing cage comprising the pockets having a roughly ellipsoidal shape (page 4: lines 19-24), the ellipsoidal shape of the pocket having a major axis L1 (in circumferential direction; Fig. 2 and 3) and a minor axis L2 (axial direction), the major axis L1 and the minor axis L2 satisfying the following relationship: L2 < L1 ≤ 1.07L2 (page 6: lines 1-5) for the purpose of preventing the balls from impacting back and forth inside the pockets but rather allowing them to slide such that their motions are smoother (page 6: lines 6-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention tom modify Herrmann and provide the first pocket having a roughly ellipsoidal shape, the ellipsoidal shape of the first pocket having a major axis L1 and a minor axis L2, the major axis L1 and the minor axis L2 satisfying the following relationship: L2 <L11.07L2, the second pocket having a roughly ellipsoidal shape, the ellipsoidal shape of the second pocket having a major axis L1 and a minor axis L2, the major axis L1 and the minor axis L2 of the second pocket satisfying the following relationship: L2 < L1 < 1.07L2 for the purpose of preventing the balls from impacting back and forth inside the pockets but rather allowing them to slide such that their motions are smoother.
Since Herrmann discloses the inner contour of the claw conforming to the pocket as shown in Fig. 3, modifying the pocket shape of Herrmann with the ellipsoid shape of Adane would then also provide the claws forming part of the ellipsoid shape of the pocket.
Re clm 2, the improvement of Adane further discloses the major axis L1 of each first and second pocket is arranged along a circumferential direction, and the minor axis L2 of each first and second pocket is arranged along an axial direction (Fig. 2 and 3).
Re clm 3, the improvement of Adane further discloses the major axis L1 of each first and second pocket and the minor axis L2 of each first and second pocket satisfy the following relationship: L2 < L1 ≤ 1.05L2 (page 6: lines 6-14).
Re clm 6, Herrmann further discloses a radially outer third claw extending from the first side wall of the first pocket toward the radially outer side of the cage and opposing the radially outer first claw along a circumferential direction (Fig. 1 and 3).
Re clm 7, Herrmann further discloses a radially inner third claw extending from the first side wall of the first pocket toward the radially inner side of the cage and opposing the radially inner first claw along a circumferential direction (Fig. 1 and 3).
Re clm 8, Herrmann in view of Adane further discloses an inner side of each of the radially outer and inner second claws and the second side wall of the second pocket together form part of the ellipsoid shape of the second pocket (Herrmann discloses the claw being the same shape as the pocket; Adan teaches ellipsoid pockets).
Re clm 10, Herrmann further discloses a bearing comprising the cage of claim 1 (ring bearings; [0005]).
Re clm 11, Herrmann further discloses the radially outer first claw borders a first side of the radially outer gap and the radially inner first claw borders a first side of the radially inner gap, the first sides of the radially outer and inner gaps being radially aligned relative to one another (Fig. 1 and 3).
Re clm 12, Herrmann further discloses the radially outer second claw borders a second side of the radially outer gap and the radially inner second claw borders a second side of the radially inner gap, the second sides of the radially outer and inner gaps being radially aligned relative to one another (Fig. 1 and 3).
Re clm 13¸Herrmann further discloses an arc-shaped segment (Fig. 3; [0005]), the arc-shaped segment having a circumferential length, the arc-shaped segment includes a plurality of pockets (Fig. 1 and 3), the plurality of pockets including the first and second pockets, the plurality of pockets being uniformly spaced apart along the circumferential length, the arc-shaped segment including the radially outer first and second claws, the radially inner first and second claws, and the radially outer and inner gaps (Fig. 1 and 3).
Re clm 14, Herrmann further discloses the radially outer first claw and the radially inner first claw are mirror images of one another (Fig. 1 and 3).
Re clm 15, Herrmann further discloses the first side wall and at least one of the radially outer first claw or the radially inner first claw each have an inner surface (at 10, Fig. 3), wherein a transition between the inner surface of the first wall and the inner surface of the at least one of the radially outer first claw or the radially inner first claw is smooth (surface of 11 is continuous with 10).
Re clm 16, Herrmann further discloses the transition is curved (shown in Fig. 3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann WO 87-04502 in view of Adane WO 2010-066293 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsuji U.S. 2017/0314619.
Herrmann in view of Adane discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 4, both Herrmann and Adane further disclose the cage is a window-type cage.
Hermann does not disclose the shortest distance between a side wall of the pocket and an axial end face of the cage is greater than or equal to 0.5 mm.
Tsuji discloses that the thickness of the cage at deepest points of the pocket are result effective variables ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Adane and provide the shortest distance between a side wall of the pocket and an axial end face of the cage is greater than or equal to 0.5 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann WO 87-04502 in view of Adane WO 2010-066293 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sekimoto U.S. 2006/0008192.
Herrmann in view of Adane disclose all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 9, Herrmann discloses a segment (Fig. 3), however Herrmann does not disclose a plurality of arc-shaped segments, and each of the arc-shaped segments comprises a plurality of pockets, the plurality of pockets including the first and second pockets; and the plurality of arc-shaped segments abut on or connect with each other after being assembled in the bearing, to form a complete cage.
Sekimoto teaches a segmented cage (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of arc-shaped segments (10s), and each of the arc-shaped segments comprises a plurality of pockets (11s), the plurality of pockets including the first and second pockets; and the plurality of arc-shaped segments abut on or connect with each other after being assembled in the bearing, to form a complete cage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Herrmann and provide a plurality of arc-shaped segments, and each of the arc-shaped segments comprises a plurality of pockets, the plurality of pockets including the first and second pockets; and the plurality of arc-shaped segments abut on or connect with each other after being assembled in the bearing, to form a complete cage for the purpose of providing a cage which is easier to assembly in larger bearings as well as to provide a cage which can be used for a variety of different bearing diameters.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann WO 87-04502 in view of Adane WO 2010-066293 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chatry FR 2876169.
Herrmann in view of Adane disclose all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 18, Herrmann does not disclose an axial length of each of the radially outer and inner first claws is greater than half the length of the major axis of the ellipsoidal shape of the first pocket.
Chatry discloses a similar ball cage for a bearing comprising an axial length of the claws is greater than half the length of the major axis of the first pocket (Fig. 1 and 2). Providing a larger claw surface area offers superior supporting strength of the balls in the pocket.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claws of Herrmann and provide an axial length of each of the radially outer and inner first claws is greater than half the length of the major axis of the ellipsoidal shape of the first pocket for the purpose of providing superior supporting strength of the balls in the pocket.
Furthermore, as a separate rationale, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the modification of Herrmann in view of Chatry, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 Jun 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Neither Herrmann nor Adane, considered alone or in combination, teach or suggest “an inner side of each of the…claws and the…side wall of the pocket together form part of the ellipsoid shape.” Applicant is attempting to attack the reference individually. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As noted in the rejection, the claws of Herrmann conform to the shape of the pocket of Herrmann as at least shown by the smooth transition between pocket 10 and inner contour 11 of the claw. Modifying the circular pocket shape of Herrmann with the ellipsoid pocket shape of Adane while preserving the smooth transition between the claw and the pocket would necessitate the claw also forming an ellipsoid contour. Applicant’s arguments neglect to consider that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. The obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 presumes not only common sense, but also skill in the art. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Circ. 1985).
Applicant asserts that “modifying Herrmann’s cage to have ellipsoid pockets as taught by Adane would not result in claws whose inner sides and the pocket side walls are all part of a single ellipsoid shape”. Applicant’s assertion does not conform with the facts of Herrmann and Adane. If, as Applicant alleges, the claws of Herrmann were not modified to conform to the pocket shape of Adane (conforming claws are shown in Fig. 3 of Herrmann), then the claws would retain a spherical shape and therefore a discontinuity at the joint between the spherical claw 11 and the ellipsoid modified pocket 10 of Herrmann would exist. It is clear from Herrmann that the inner contours of the claw are intended as guiding surfaces. If there is a discontinuity between the pocket surface and the claw, then the inner contour of the claw no longer acts as a guiding surface. Unlike the examiner’s modification in the rejections above, modifying the references according to Applicant’s argument actually teaches away from the principles of the claws in Herrmann.
For these reasons, the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN B WAITS whose telephone number is (571)270-3664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6-4 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 R 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.
/ALAN B WAITS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights