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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the limitation “the cage body having an L-shape cross-section, the cage body having a radial wall and a circumferential wall” should be changed to “the cage body having an L-shape cross-section defining a radial wall and a circumferential wall” to clarify that the radial wall and circumferential wall forms the L-shape cross-section.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 16 and 24-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (JP2009008170A).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses (in figs. 1-2 and annotated fig. 8) a cage (23) for rolling elements (4) of a bearing (fig. 1) 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 (the ndm value is being treated as a functional limitation as it is a sizing equation that depends on how fast the bearing is rotating. The equation is a speed multiplied by a size of the bearing to arrive at a number used to categorize or quantify the bearing. Because of that, the ndm value is being considered as a functional limitation as it is not structurally limiting the bearing. It is a sizing equation as it depends on how fast the bearing is being rotated. In other words, there could be the same bearing with the same sizing and elements but when it rotates at one speed, it is not infringing on the patent. However, if it is rotating at another speed, it would be infringing the patent. This makes it a conditional limitation that is not structurally limiting the bearing.), the cage (23) comprising:
a cage body (23) made of a polymer material (para. [0016] disclose PEEK),
the cage body (23) including a lubrication enhancer and/or an elastic modulus enhancer added to the polymer material during the manufacturing process (para. [0016] discloses glass or carbon fiber, which is the same as the instant application’s elastic modulus enhancer),
the cage body (23) having an L-shape cross-section,
the cage body (23) having a radial wall (7) and a circumferential wall (8) intersecting one another,
the cage body having an inner hole (hole in the middle of the cage 23 or IH in annotated fig. 7) configured to receive an inner ring (2) of the bearing (fig. 1),
the cage body (23) including a cavity (25b) in communication with the inner hole (IH).
PNG
media_image1.png
262
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka discloses the cage according to claim 1, wherein the polymer material comprises polyamide resin or PEEK or PAEK (para. [0016]).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka discloses the cage according to claim 1, wherein the elastic modulus enhancer comprises carbon fibers and/or glass fibers (para. [0016]).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka discloses a bearing with ndm greater than 1,500,000, comprising the cage (23) according to claim 1 (the ndm value is being treated as a functional limitation).
Regarding claim 24, Tanaka discloses the cage according to claim 1, wherein the cage body (23) includes an inner annular surface (IAS) bounding the inner hole (IH), the cavity (25b) disposed on the inner annular surface (IAS).
Regarding claim 25, Tanaka discloses the cage according to claim 1, wherein the cavity (25b) has an open axial end.
Regarding claim 26, Tanaka discloses (in fig. 8) the cage according to claim 25, wherein the cavity (25b) has a closed axial end opposite the open axial end.
Regarding claim 27, Tanaka discloses the cage according to claim 1, wherein the cage body (23) includes a plurality of pockets (9), each pocket (9) configured to receive one rolling element (4) of the bearing (fig. 1), the cavity (25b) being disposed between two adjacent pockets (9) of the plurality of pockets (9).
Regarding claim 28, Tanaka discloses the cage according to claim 1, wherein the cage body (23) includes a plurality of pockets (9), each pocket (9) configured to receive one rolling element (4) of the bearing (fig. 1), the cavity (25b) being spaced apart from each pocket (9) of the plurality of pockets (9).
Regarding claim 29, Tanaka discloses the cage according to claim 1, wherein the cage body (23) includes a plurality of pockets (9), each pocket (9) configured to receive one rolling element (4) of the bearing (fig. 1), each pocket (9) having an open axial end.
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, 12-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2009008170A) in view of Yamazumi et al. (US 5271679 A).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka 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 Tanaka, 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, Tanaka 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 (Yamazumi col. 5, lines 51-60, teaches the PTFE amount is 10%, which is within the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka in view of Yamazumi teaches the cage according to claim 4, wherein the elastic modulus enhancer comprises carbon fibers and/or glass fibers (Tanaka para. [0016]).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka in view of Yamazumi 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; according to the test method under ISO178, dry state and loading rate of 1mm/min, the cage has a bending modulus greater than 10GPa; and/or according to the test method under ISO179 and dry state, the cage has an impact strength greater than 20KJ/m2.
The claim recites a test method, which is not structurally limiting the bearing itself; however, since Tanaka in view of Yamazumi 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 14, Tanaka view of Yamazumi teaches the cage according to claim 4, wherein the tensile strength of the cage is greater than 90MPa.
While Tanaka view of Yamazumi does not explicitly teach the tensile strength of the cage is greater than 90MPa, Tanaka view of Yamazumi teaches 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, Tanaka 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 Tanaka does not explicitly disclose the water absorption rate of the cage is less than 0.1%, Tanaka 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 17, Tanaka in view of Yamazumi teaches a bearing with ndm greater than 1,500,000, comprising the cage (23) according to claim 13 (the ndm value is being treated as a functional limitation).
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka in view of Yamazumi teaches the cage according to claim 4, wherein 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).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2009008170A) alone.
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka 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; according to the test method under ISO178, dry state and loading rate of 1mm/min, the cage has a bending modulus greater than 10GPa; and/or according to the test method under ISO179 and dry state, the cage has an impact strength greater than 20KJ/m2.
The claim recites a test method, which is not structurally limiting the bearing itself; however, since Tanaka 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 7, Tanaka discloses the cage according to claim 1, wherein the tensile strength of the cage is greater than 90MPa.
While Tanaka does not explicitly disclose the tensile strength of the cage is greater than 90MPa, Tanaka 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, Tanaka discloses the cage according to claim 1, wherein the water absorption rate of the cage is less than 0.1%.
While Tanaka does not explicitly disclose the water absorption rate of the cage is less than 0.1%, Tanaka 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) 10 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2009008170A) in view of Naito (US 20070230849 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka 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 teaches the polymer material comprises a polyamide resin, and the polyamide resin comprises polytetramethylene adipamide (PA46) or polyhexamethylene adipamide (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 polyhexamethylene adipamide (PA66), as taught by Naito, in the cage of Tanaka 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.
Regarding claim 19, Tanaka discloses the cage according to claim 5 but does not disclose the length of a carbon fiber and/or a glass fiber is 0.1-12 mm, and the diameter of the carbon fiber and/or the glass fiber is 5-20 μm.
Naito teaches 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 Tanaka 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 20, Tanaka discloses the cage according to claim 5, but does not disclose 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 5-15 μm.
Naito teaches 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 Tanaka 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 21, Tanaka 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 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 20-40KJ/m2.
The claim recites a test method, which is not structurally limiting the bearing itself; however, since Tanaka 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).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2009008170A) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20050069239 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka 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) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2009008170A) in view of Yamazumi (US 5271679 A) and in further view of Naito (US 20070230849 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Tanaka in view of Yamazumi teaches the cage according to claim 18, wherein the elastic modulus enhancer comprises carbon fibers and/or glass fibers (Tanaka para. [0016]) but does not teach the length of the carbon fiber and/or glass fiber is 0.1-3 mm, and the diameter of the carbon fiber and/or glass fiber is 5-15 μm.
Naito teaches 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 Tanaka in view of Yamazumi 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 23, Tanaka in view of Yamazumi and in further view of Naito teaches the cage according to claim 22 but does not teach the test method under ISO527, dry state and loading rate of 1mm/min, the cage has an elastic modulus of 15-65Gpa; according to the test method under ISO 178, dry state and loading rate of 1mm/min, the cage has a bending modulus of 10-45GPa; and/or according to the test method under ISO 179 and dry state, the cage has an impact strength of 20-40KJ/m2.
The claim recites a test method, which is not structurally limiting the bearing itself; however, since Tanaka in view of Yamazumi and in further 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).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2009008170A) in view of Fukuzoe (JP 2007056913 A).
Regarding claim 31, Tanaka discloses the cage according to claim 1 but does not disclose the lubrication enhancer comprises PFPE.
Fukuzoe teaches the lubrication enhancer comprises PFPE (para. [0016]) for the purpose of limiting the increase of noise, torque fluctuations, and bearing temperature due to heat generation (para. [0004]).
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 Fukuzoe, in the cage of Tanaka, for the purpose of limiting the increase of noise, torque fluctuations, and bearing temperature due to heat generation (para. [0004]). 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) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2009008170A) in view of Yamada (US 20090220181 A1).
Regarding claim 32,Tanaka discloses the cage according to claim 1 but does not disclose the polymer material comprises a polyamide resin, and the polyamide resin comprises polypentanediamine adipate, polydecanediamine sebacic anhydride, polydecanoyl pentanediamine, poly (p-phenylene terephthaloyl nonyl diamine), or polyphenylenedicarbonyl decanediamine.
Yamada teaches the polymer material comprises a polyamide resin, and the polyamide resin comprises poly (p-phenylene terephthaloyl nonyl diamine) (PA9T) for the purpose of having good heat resistance (para. [0220]).
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 poly (p-phenylene terephthaloyl nonyl diamine) (PA9T), as taught by Yamada, in the cage of Tanaka for the purpose of having good heat resistance (para. [0220]). 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.
Alternative rejection #1
In the case that the ndm value is later determined to be structurally limiting:
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2009008170A) in view of Bottazzi (EP 2610510 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses (in figs. 1 and annotated fig. 8) a cage (23) for rolling elements of a bearing, the cage (23) comprising:
a cage body (23) made of a polymer material (para. [0016] disclose PEEK),
the cage body (23) including a lubrication enhancer and/or an elastic modulus enhancer added to the polymer material during the manufacturing process (para. [0016] discloses glass or carbon fiber, which is the same as the instant application’s elastic modulus enhancer) ,
the cage body (23) having an L-shape cross-section,
the cage body (23) having a radial wall (7) and a circumferential wall (8) intersecting one another,
the cage body having an inner hole (hole in the middle of the cage 23 or IH in annotated fig. 7) configured to receive an inner ring (2) of the bearing,
the cage body (23) including a cavity (25b) in communication with the inner hole (IH).
Tanaka does not disclose a cage for rolling elements of a bearing 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.
Bottazzi teaches the cage for rolling elements of a bearing 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.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a cage for rolling elements of a bearing 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, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
This is a sizing equation as it depends on how fast the bearing is being rotated. The equation is a speed multiplied by a size of the bearing to arrive at a number used to categorize or quantify the bearing. Because of that, the ndm value is being considered as a functional limitation as it is not structurally limiting the bearing. It is a sizing equation as it depends on how fast the bearing is being rotated. In other words, there could be the same bearing with the same sizing and elements but when it rotates at one speed, it is not infringing on the patent. However, if it is rotating at another speed, it would be infringing the patent. This makes it a conditional limitation that is not structurally limiting the bearing.
Alternative rejection #2
Claim(s) 1 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwanaga (US 20230085727 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Iwanaga discloses (in fig. 1-6 and 11) a cage (10) for rolling elements of a bearing 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 (the ndm value is being treated as a functional limitation as it is a sizing equation that depends on how fast the bearing is rotating. The equation is a speed multiplied by a size of the bearing to arrive at a number used to categorize or quantify the bearing. Because of that, the ndm value is being considered as a functional limitation as it is not structurally limiting the bearing. It is a sizing equation as it depends on how fast the bearing is being rotated. In other words, there could be the same bearing with the same sizing and elements but when it rotates at one speed, it is not infringing on the patent. However, if it is rotating at another speed, it would be infringing the patent. This makes it a conditional limitation that is not structurally limiting the bearing.),
the cage (10) comprising:
a cage body (10) made of a polymer material (para. [0050] discloses PEEK),
the cage body (10) including a lubrication enhancer and/or an elastic modulus enhancer added to the polymer material during the manufacturing process ((para. [0060] discloses glass or carbon fiber, which is the same as the instant application’s elastic modulus enhancer),
the cage body having an L-shape cross-section (see fig. 3), the cage body (10) having a radial wall ( wall of 11) and a circumferential wall (wall of 12) intersecting one another,
the cage body (10) having an inner hole (hole in the middle of cage 10) configured to receive an inner ring (3) of the bearing (1),
the cage body (10) including a cavity (20) in communication with the inner hole (hole in the middle of cage 10).
Regarding claim 30, Iwanaga discloses the cage according to claim 1, wherein the cage body (23) includes a plurality of pockets (13), each pocket (13) configured to receive one rolling element (6) of the bearing (fig. 11), wherein the cage body (10) includes a plurality of partitions (12), each partition (12) disposed between and bounding two adjacent pockets (13) of the plurality of pockets (13), each partition (12) including two claws (14), each claw (14) configured to hold one rolling element (6) of the bearing (fig. 11) in the corresponding pocket (13) for said rolling element (6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9 filed 05/18/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. As stated in the rejection, the ndm value is being treated as a functional limitation as it is a sizing equation that depends on how fast the bearing is rotating. The equation is a speed multiplied by a size of the bearing to arrive at a number used to categorize or quantify the bearing. Because of that, the ndm value is being considered as a functional limitation as it is not structurally limiting the bearing. It is a sizing equation as it depends on how fast the bearing is being rotated. In other words, there could be the same bearing with the same sizing and elements but when it rotates at one speed, it is not infringing on the patent. However, if it is rotating at another speed, it would be infringing the patent. This makes it a conditional limitation that is not structurally limiting the bearing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto (US 20170211617 A1) discloses another rolling bearing with a cage having an L-shaped cross-section.
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 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
Prosecution Insights