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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the preloading mechanism (claim 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 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) 1-3 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (US 20090129713 A1) in view of Takata (US 6116786 A) and in further view of Katsuno (JP 2003172343 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hattori discloses (in annotated fig. 1 and 2) an angular contact ball bearing arrangement (fig. 1) comprising:
a first raceway element (3) having a first raceway (4),
a second raceway element (1) having a second raceway (2),
and a plurality of balls (6) between the first raceway element (3) and the second raceway element (1) in contact with the first and second raceways (4, 2),
wherein, when viewed in cross section through one ball of the plurality of balls (6) the angular contact ball bearing arrangement is divided into a first quadrant (Q1),
a second quadrant (Q2), a third quadrant (Q3) and a fourth quadrant (Q4) arranged clockwise by an axis of rotation (Ar) of the one ball (6) and an axis perpendicular (As) to the axis of rotation of the one ball (6),
wherein the one ball (6) contacts the second raceway (2) at a first contact point (b) in the first quadrant (Q1) and a second contact point (a) in the second quadrant (Q2) and contacts the first raceway (4) at a third contact point (d) in the third quadrant (Q3) and a fourth contact point (c) in the fourth quadrant (Q4),
wherein the second raceway (2) lies in the first quadrant (Q1) and in the second quadrant (Q2) and the first raceway (3) lies in the third quadrant (Q3) and in the fourth quadrant (Q4).
Hattori does not disclose a centre point of a radius of curvature of a portion of the second raceway in the first quadrant lies in the third quadrant, a centre point of a radius of curvature of a portion of the second raceway in the second quadrant lies in the fourth quadrant, wherein a centre point of a radius of curvature of a portion of the first raceway in the third quadrant lies in the first quadrant, wherein a centre point of a radius of curvature of a portion of the first raceway of in the fourth quadrant lies in the second quadrant.
Takata teaches (in figs. 2b and 2c) a centre point (Ce2) of a radius of curvature (Re2) of a portion of the second raceway (12) in the first quadrant lies in the third quadrant, a centre point (Ce1) of a radius of curvature (Re1) of a portion of the second raceway (12) in the second quadrant lies in the fourth quadrant, wherein a centre point (Ci2) of a radius of curvature (left Ri2) of a portion of the first raceway (13) in the third quadrant lies in the first quadrant, wherein a centre point (Ci1) of a radius of curvature (right Ri2) of a portion of the first raceway (13) of in the fourth quadrant lies in the second quadrant.
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 centre point of a radius of curvature lie in the opposing quadrant of the radius of curvature, as taught by Takata, in the angular contact ball bearing of Hattori for the purpose of accommodating load and avoiding misalignment between the balls and raceways.
Hattori in view of Takata does not teach wherein the first contact point and the second contact point are offset from the axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the one ball and lie on the second raceway within an angle of ±10° from the axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the one ball, and wherein the third contact point and the fourth contact point are offset from the axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the one ball and lie on the first raceway within an angle of ±10° from the axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the one ball.
Katsuno teaches that in a four point contact bearing, the contact angle can range from 12.5 to 32.5 degrees (see para. [0025] and tables). Katsuno further teaches that that varying the variables within the tables, including the angle changes the axial rigidity of the bearing (see para. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Hattori in view of Takata and use an angle of 10 degrees or less as the contact angle, since modifying the contact angle to any range is within the level of ordinary skill and is thus not inventive. Also, as taught in Katsuno, the selection of the angle is a known result effect variable which alters the axial rigidity of the bearing assembly as a whole, the contact angle is also known in the art to alter load capacity of the bearing. An angle of 0 degrees provides a radial bearing which supports 100% of the radial load and as the angle increases, the bearing is capable of supporting both radial and axial loads. The selection of the particular angle is not inventive since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The feature can also be viewed as optimizing the bearing for a particular, unclaimed purpose, and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (same shape, quadrants and radius configurations) discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
620
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hattori in view of Takata and in further view of Katsuno teaches (in Hattori annotated fig. 1) the angular contact ball bearing arrangement (fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the radius of curvature of the portion of the second raceway (2) in the first quadrant (Q1) and the radius of curvature of the portion of the second raceway (2) in the second quadrant (Q2) intersect on the axis (Ap) perpendicular to the axis (Ar) of rotation of the one ball (6), and wherein the radius of curvature of the portion of the first raceway (4) in the third quadrant (Q3) and the radius of curvature of the portion of the first raceway (4) in the fourth quadrant (Q4) intersect on the axis (Ap) perpendicular to the axis of rotation (Ar) of the one ball (6, the radius of curvatures are very close to on another so they will intersect at one point on the axis).
Regarding claim 3, Hattori in view of Takata and in further view of Katsuno teaches (in Hattori annotated fig. 1 and fig. 2) the angular contact ball bearing arrangement according to claim 2, wherein the radius of curvature of the portion of the second raceway (2) in the first quadrant (Q1) and the radius of curvature of the portion of the second raceway (2) in the second quadrant and the radius of curvature of the portion of the first raceway (4) in the third quadrant (Q3) and the radius of curvature of the portion of the first raceway (4) in the fourth quadrant (Q1) are identical (since the curvature of the raceway is illustrated as constant, the radius of each portion in the respective quadrant would be identical).
Regarding claim 7, Hattori in view of Takata and in further view of Katsuno teaches (in Hattori annotated fig. 1) the angular contact ball bearing arrangement according to claim 1 but does not teach the angular contact ball bearing arrangement is a double-row angular contact ball bearing arrangement and wherein the plurality of balls include a first row of the plurality of balls and a second row of the plurality of balls.
However, Hattori teaches (in the alternative embodiment of fig. 6) that the angular contact ball bearing arrangement (fig. 6) is a double-row angular contact ball bearing arrangement (fig. 6) and wherein the plurality of balls (left and right balls) include a first row of the plurality of balls (left balls) and a second row of the plurality of balls (right balls).
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 angular contact ball bearing arrangement of Hattori in view of Takata and in further view of Katsuno be a double-row angular contact ball bearing, as taught by the alternative embodiment of Hattori, for the purpose of use in heavy duty applications.
Regarding claim 8, Hattori in view of Takata and in further view of Katsuno teaches (in Hattori fig. 6) the angular contact ball bearing arrangement (fig. 6) according to claim 7, wherein the second raceway element (1) is configured as a divided raceway element (1), and wherein the first raceway element (14) is configured as a common raceway element (14).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (US 20090129713 A1) in view of Takata (US 6116786 A) and in further view of Katsuno (JP 2003172343 A) and in further view of Shirokoshi et al. (US 6837623 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Hattori in view of Takata and in further view of Katsuno teaches (in Hattori annotated fig. 1) the angular contact ball bearing arrangement (fig. 1) according claim 1 but does not teach wherein the radius of curvature of the portion of the second raceway in the first quadrant and the radius of curvature of the portion of the second raceway in the second quadrant and the radius of curvature of the portion of the first raceway in the third quadrant and the radius of curvature of the portion of the first raceway in the fourth quadrant are non-constant.
Shirokoshi teaches (in fig. 2) that in a four point contact ball bearing that the raceway radius values can be configured so that the radius value diminishes from the contact point/region, thus the radius is changing and non-constant (21 illustrates the arc as it would appear with a constant radius, however the actual shape of the raceway is shown diverging form this dashed line and thus the radius along the raceway has changed from the contact region 22 to the ends, see col. 3, lines 8-26) for the purpose of providing a raceway where fluctuations in the positions of the contact points due to machining errors can be suppressed (see col. 4, lines 8-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hattori in view of Takata and in further view of Katsuno, and use raceways with non-constant radius values, as taught by Shirokoshi, for the purpose of providing a raceway where fluctuations in the positions of the contact points due to machining errors can be suppressed (see col. 4, lines 8-15).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (US 20090129713 A1) in view of Takata (US 6116786 A) and in further view of Katsuno (JP 2003172343 A) and in further view of Robinson (US 3549220 A)
Regarding claim 9, Hattori in view of Takata and in further view of Katsuno teaches (in Hattori fig. 6) the angular contact ball bearing arrangement (fig. 6) according to claim 8 but does not teach a preloading mechanism for controlling the first, second, third and fourth contact points.
Robinson teaches (in fig. 1) a preloading mechanism (nut 50 and collar 54) for controlling the first, second, third and fourth contact points for the purpose of establishing the desired preload on the bearing (col. 4, lines 17-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a preloading mechanism, as taught by Robinson, in the angular contact ball bearing arrangement of Hattori in view of Takata and in further view of Katsuno for the purpose of establishing the desired preload on the bearing (col. 4, lines 17-27).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (US 20090129713 A1) in view of Takata (US 6116786 A) and in further view of Katsuno (JP 2003172343 A) and in further view of Ueki (US 5158372 A).
Regarding claim 10, Hattori in view of Takata and in further view of Katsuno teaches (in Hattori annotated fig. 1) the four point contact angular contact ball bearing arrangement (fig. 1) but does not teach that the angular contact ball bearing arrangement is a linear bearing, where the first raceway element is a rail and wherein the second raceway element is a carriage.
Ueki teaches a four point contact ball bearing can be used in a linear bearing (fig. 2) where the first raceway element is a rail (1) and the second raceway element is a carriage (4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hattori in view of Katsuno and configure the four point angular contact ball bearing as a linear bearing, as taught by Ueki, since applying known geometry of a four point contact angular ball bearing (Hattori in view of Katsuno) into any previously known device, such as a linear bearing with a rail and a carriage, as taught by Ueki, provides the predictable result of supporting one moving element relative to another. In other words, the claim can be viewed as reciting the specific type of bearing where the four point configuration is used; however, Ueki is demonstrating that Applicant is not the first to use the concept in a linear bearing and thus applying the geometry of Hattori in view of Takata and in further view of Katsuno into any previously known bear, including a linear bearing, that uses a four point contact arrangement is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
With regards to 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the drawing objections, Applicant is traversing the rejection by arguing that “the present application is a national phase entry of a PCT application. As discussed in MPEP 1825, "[d]rawings newly executed according to national standards may not be required during the national phase if the drawings filed with the international application comply with PCT Rule 11.”” And that the drawings should not be objected as they comply with PCT Rule 11.
However, PCT Rule 11 only discusses formatting or the physical requirements/standards an internation application must adhere to, not the current drawing objection of the drawings not showing the claimed subject matter. It is critical that drawings illustrate the invention as claimed so that those skilled in the art would understand Applicant’s intended meaning and what they had possession of at the time of filing. By just stating there is a preloading mechanism, it is unknown by what the Applicant means. What is a preloading mechanism? Is it a spring, a special device, or just the way the elements interact with one another? Where is the preloading positioned in between? Can it be place anywhere?
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Applicant argues on page 6 the rationale used in Takata that it would have been obvious "...to have the centre point of a radius of curvature lie in the opposing quadrant of the radius of curvature, as taught by Takata, in the angular contact ball bearing of Hattori for the purpose of accommodating load and avoiding misalignment between the balls and raceways." Applicant argues that “In the present case, the two statements that purport to be reasons for modifying Hattori are not reasons to modify Hattori at least because they have no support in the record.”
Applicant further argues that Hattori will accommodate load without needing to be modified using Takata. However, an inventor would not be satisfied with just a bearing that can accommodate load. An inventor would test out different methods and ways to improve the accommodation of load and might use Takata (US 6116786 A) as an inspiration to do so. For example, in col. 2, lines 46-56 of ‘786, the inventor themselves stated that single-row four point contact bearing may be able to bear a radial load and an axial rotational moment load but discuss the effects of slide or slip between the inner and outer rings when loads are loaded at the same time. They realized that the slide and slip can be minimized by minimizing the generation of this slide or slip against the radial load and the axial rotational moment load.
Applicant also questions how modifying Hattori can improve greater load. As stated above, there is an example of how greater load can be improved.
Applicant later argues the motivation of “avoiding misalignment between the balls and raceways” as the reason to modify Hattori with Takata to have the centre point of a radius of curvature lie in the opposing quadrant of the radius of curvature. The Applicant believes there is no problem of alignment between balls and raceways existing in Hattori and that the proposed modification will not have any effect on alignment.
The rejection is not about anticipating whether Hattori will have a problem of misalignment or not, the rejection is whether it is obvious to modify Hattori with Takata to have the centre point of a radius of curvature lying in the opposing quadrant of the radius of curvature or not. Takata shows that it is known to do so and that it is not inventive. It would also avoid misalignment as slip and slide can be minimized and uneven load causing stress, uneven wear, and load distribution issues between the balls and raceways can be avoided if the radius of curvature is considered.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617