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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4-6 and 12-13 the phrase "preferably” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact persecution, the examiner will examine the claims without these words whereby the limitations following these words are interpreted as positive recitations of the claim
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2, 7-9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bottazzi (EP 2610510 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bottazzi (in figs. 1-4) discloses a cage (1) for rolling elements (2) of a bearing (3) with ndm greater than 1,500,000, wherein ndm is calculated as rotational speed in RPM of a bearing inner ring multiplied by pitch diameter in mm of a bearing rolling element (para. [0033] discloses the ndm is equal or higher than 1,500,000 ndm), the cage (1) comprising:
a cage body (1) made of a polymer material (para. [0025] PAEK or PEEK), the cage body including a lubrication enhancer and/or an elastic modulus enhancer (para. [0025] discloses glass or carbon fiber as a filler, which is the same as the instant application’s elastic modulus enhancer) added to the polymer material during the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 2, Bottazzi discloses the cage according to claim 1, wherein the polymer material comprises polyamide resin or PEEK or PAEK (para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 7, Bottazzi discloses the cage according to claim 1, wherein the tensile strength of the cage is greater than 90MPa.
While Bottazzi does not explicitly disclose the tensile strength of the cage is greater than 90MPa, Bottazzi discloses the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. The data sheet for PEEK also states that the average tensile strength is 98.9 MPA. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 8, Bottazzi discloses the cage according to claim 1, wherein the water absorption rate of the cage is less than 0.1%.
While Bottazzi does not explicitly disclose the water absorption rate of the cage is less than 0.1%, Bottazzi discloses the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. The data sheet for PEEK also states that the water absorption can be less than 0.1%. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 9, Bottazzi discloses (in figs. 1 and 4) the cage according to claim 1, wherein the cage is an L-shaped cage with a radial wall (9) and a circumferential wall (11) intersecting with each other.
Regarding claim 16, Bottazzi discloses a bearing (3)z with ndm greater than 1,500,000, comprising the cage according to claim 1.
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) 3-4 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottazzi (EP 2610510 A1) in view of Yamazumi et al. (US 5271679 A).
Regarding claim 3, Bottazzi discloses the cage according to claim 1 but does not disclose the lubrication enhancer comprises PFPE and/or PTFE.
Yamazumi teaches the lubrication enhancer comprises PTFE (col. 5, lines 51-60 PTFE in the amount of 10 to 40%).
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 lubricant enhancer, as taught by Yamazumi, in the cage of Bottazzi, for the purpose of improving lubricating properties (col. 2, lines 54-64). It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis for its suitability for the intended uses as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, Bottazzi in view of Yamazumi teaches the cage according to claim 3, wherein the content of the PFPE and/or the PTFE is 0.5%-15% by weight; preferably, the content of the PFPE and/or the PTFE is 0.5%-10% by weight (Yamazumi col. 5, lines 51-60, teaches the PTFE amount is 10%, which is within the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 14, Bottazzi in view of Yamazumi teaches the cage according to claim 4, wherein the tensile strength of the cage is greater than 90MPa.
While Bottazzi does not explicitly disclose the tensile strength of the cage is greater than 90MPa, Bottazzi discloses the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. The data sheet for PEEK also states that the average tensile strength is 98.9 MPA. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 15, Bottazzi in view of Yamazumi teaches the cage according to claim 4, wherein the water absorption rate of the cage is less than 0.1%.
While Bottazzi does not explicitly disclose the water absorption rate of the cage is less than 0.1%, Bottazzi discloses the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. The data sheet for PEEK also states that the water absorption can be less than 0.1%. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottazzi (EP 2610510 A1) in view of Naito (US 20070230849 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Bottazzi discloses the cage according to claim 1 but does not disclose the elastic modulus enhancer comprises carbon fibers and/or glass fibers; preferably, the length of a carbon fiber and/or a glass fiber is 0.1-12mm, and the diameter of the carbon fiber and/or the glass fiber is 5-20μm; more preferably, the length of the carbon fiber and/or glass fiber is 0.1-3mm, and the diameter of the carbon fiber and/or glass fiber is 5-15μm.
Naito discloses the glass fiber having an average diameter of 5 to 20 μm and a length of 0.2 to 1 mm, which is within the claimed range, (para. [0085]) for the purpose of reducing the cost of the retainer by reducing the amount of PEEK (para. [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to having the glass fiber having an average diameter of 5 to 20 μm and a length of 0.2 to 1 mm, as taught by Naito, in the cage of Bottazzi for the purpose of reducing the cost of the retainer by reducing the amount of PEEK (para. [0088]). It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis for its suitability for the intended uses as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, Bottazzi in view of Naito teaches the cage according to claim 5 but does not teach the test method under ISO527, dry state and loading rate of 1mm/min, the cage has an elastic modulus greater than 15Gpa, preferably, the cage has an elastic modulus of 15-65Gpa; according to the test method under ISO178, dry state and loading rate of 1mm/min, the cage has a bending modulus greater than 10GPa, preferably, the cage has a bending modulus of 10-45GPa; and/or according to the test method under ISO179 and dry state, the cage has an impact strength greater than 20KJ/m2, and preferably, the cage has an impact strength greater than 20-40KJ/m2.
The claim recites a test method, which is not structurally limiting the bearing itself; however, since Bottazzi in view of Naito teaches the cage with the same material combination as the instant application, they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. Which means if you test the same material combinations in the same conditions, it should test the same way. MPEP 2112.01 also states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 10, Bottazzi discloses the cage according to claim 1 but does not disclose the polymer material comprises a polyamide resin, and the polyamide resin comprises polytetramethylene adipamide, polypentanediamine adipate, polyhexamethylene adipamide, polydecanediamine sebacic anhydride, polydecanoyl pentanediamine, poly (p-phenylene terephthaloyl nonyl diamine), or polyphenylenedicarbonyl decanediamine.
Naito discloses the polymer material comprises a polyamide resin, and the polyamide resin comprises polytetramethylene adipamide (PA46) or polypentanediamine adipate (PA66) for the purpose of having superior heat resistance and durability or be easily mounted in a bearing (para. [0078]).
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 polymer material comprises a polyamide resin, and the polyamide resin comprises polytetramethylene adipamide (PA46) or polypentanediamine adipate (PA66), as taught by Naito, in the cage of Bottazzi for the purpose of having superior heat resistance and durability or be easily mounted in a bearing (para. [0078]). It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis for its suitability for the intended uses as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottazzi (EP 2610510 A1) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20050069239 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Bottazzi discloses the cage according to claim 1 but does not disclose the cage body is formed by an injection molding process of the polymer material, and the lubrication enhancer and/or the elastic modulus enhancer is added to the polymer material in an injection molding stage of the injection molding process.
Yamamoto teaches the cage body is formed by an injection molding process of the polymer material, and the lubrication enhancer and/or the elastic modulus enhancer is added to the polymer material in an injection molding stage of the injection molding process (para. [0097] discloses the cage body is formed by injection molding and the elastic modulus enhancer (carbon fiber or glass fiber) is added during the process).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cage body being formed by an injection molding process of the polymer material, and the lubrication enhancer and/or the elastic modulus enhancer is added to the polymer material in an injection molding stage of the injection molding process as the cage may be made by any known manufacturing method which is suitable to the desired operational characteristics of the part being made. Further, the patentability of the device does not depend on its method of manufacture.
[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottazzi (EP 2610510 A1) in view of Yamazumi et al. (US 5271679 A) and in further view of view of Naito (US 20070230849 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Bottazzi in view of Yamazumi teaches the cage according to claim 4, but does not teach the elastic modulus enhancer comprises carbon fibers and/or glass fibers; preferably, the length of a carbon fiber and/or a glass fiber is 0.1-12mm, and the diameter of the carbon fiber and/or the glass fiber is 5-20μm; more preferably, the length of the carbon fiber and/or glass fiber is 0.1-3mm, and the diameter of the carbon fiber and/or glass fiber is 5-15μm.
Naito discloses the glass fiber having an average diameter of 5 to 20 μm and a length of 0.2 to 1 mm, which is within the claimed range, (para. [0085]) for the purpose of reducing the cost of the retainer by reducing the amount of PEEK (para. [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to having the glass fiber having an average diameter of 5 to 20 μm and a length of 0.2 to 1 mm, as taught by Naito, in the cage of Bottazzi in in view of Naito for the purpose of reducing the cost of the retainer by reducing the amount of PEEK (para. [0088]). It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis for its suitability for the intended uses as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 13, Bottazzi in view of Yamazumi and in further view of Naito teaches the cage according to claim 12 but does not teach according to the test method under ISO527, dry state and loading rate of 1mm/min, the cage has an elastic modulus greater than 15Gpa, preferably, the cage has an elastic modulus of 15-65Gpa; according to the test method under ISO178, dry state and loading rate of 1mm/min, the cage has a bending modulus greater than 10GPa, preferably, the cage has a bending modulus of 10-45GPa; and/or according to the test method under ISO179 and dry state, the cage has an impact strength greater than 20KJ/m2, and preferably, the cage has an impact strength greater than 20-40KJ/m2.
The claim recites a test method, which is not structurally limiting the bearing itself; however, since Bottazzi in view of Naito teaches the cage with the same material combination as the instant application, they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. Which means if you test the same material combinations in the same conditions, it should test the same way. MPEP 2112.01 also states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 17, Bottazzi in view of Yamazumi and in further view of Naito teaches a bearing with ndm greater than 1,500,000, comprising the cage according to claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Plum (US 20230118547 A1) discloses a bearing cage with a speed index of at least 1,000,000 mm/min or ndm.
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