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 rim border only being formed in sections (clm 5), the alternative of the outer rim being the double walled rim (alternative explicitly claimed in claim 11) and the edge rims extending in opposite directions from the sigma profile (clm 18, see NOTE at the end of this section) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The claims also reference outer side surfaces of the washers, while it can be concluded from the drawings that this is in reference to the sides of the washers opposite the raceway surfaces a reference character and corresponding description should be included in the drawings and specification.
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.
NOTE: regarding claim 18 the claim is stating that from the sigma profile the edge rims extend in opposite directions, this is not what is illustrated. Using the sigma profile results in both rims extending from the sigma profile toward one of the two washers (this is what claim 6 is correctly stating), Applicant’s invention is then related to doubling one of the rims back over itself to create the distinctly claimed double rim design. What claim 18 is stating is that the double rim design would extend in an opposite direction relative to the other rim from the sigma profile, this is inaccurate and not shown in the drawings. The claim needs state that both rims extend from the sigma profile toward one of the washers, however this might require additional clarification regarding the formation of the double rim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0019 recites “rim border 5 or 6”, however these characters are first used in reference to the rims in general, not the specific border later referenced as 9 or 11. In this case “rim border 5 or 6” should read - -edge rim 5 or 6- - to keep phrasing consistent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Prior to addressing the claims for 112s and an art rejection, it is first noted that claim 11 is a redrafting of claim 1 using the suggested format under 37 CFR 1.75(i) with one distinction. The distinction being that claim 11 clearly sets forth the double ring as being on either one of the radial ends of the cage, will this could be included in claim 1 this is not explicitly stated, however claim 11 has a drawing objection above. If Applicant’s solution to the drawing objection is to delete the alternative recitation the claims would be clear duplicates of one another and thus Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Because the claims are ultimately duplicate of one another the claims will be treated simultaneously with art using the preferred claim drafting of the claim set stating with claim 11 for the basis of the rejection. All claims also rejected simultaneously are being considered substantially duplicate of each other.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. First, the claim lacks a clear preamble rendering it unclear what is background information and where the claiming of the actual inventive concept begins. Second the claim references “in the opposite direction” however it is unclear what direction this is and what it is opposite two. Applicant appears to be claiming the doubled up or folded rim however the claim does not explicitly define the structure, particular the first rim portion extending in one direction, to aid in providing an understanding of what the fold or bended end would be opposite to.
NOTE: claim 11 includes a similar recitation however the claim first states that the rim extends in an axial direction and then the end side bend extends opposite to that, a similar comparison should be added to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear what the recitation “it” is referencing back to. Is this the transitional shoulder, the washer, the edge rim or the rim boarder? After listing a number of different structural elements it becomes unclear what specific part is referenced by using the term “it”. In this case is the first it referencing the shoulder or the edge rim? Is the second “it” referencing the edge rim, the shoulder or the rim border?
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) 1-5, 10, 11, 14-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba, JP11006522.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Chiba discloses an axial rolling bearing unit (figure 3) comprising: a first annular axial bearing washer (301 or 303); a second annular axial bearing washer (other one of 301 or 303); a bearing cage (321) comprising: an inner radial edge rim (321b) extending in an axial direction; and an outer radial edge rim (321a) extending in the axial direction; and rolling elements (102) arranged between the first annular axial bearing washer and the second annular axial bearing washer, the rolling elements being radially guided by the inner radial edge rim and the outer radial edge rim (radially guides the rollers by interacting with the bearing washer, this is similar to the instant application where neither of the rims directly contact the roller); wherein: one of the rims comprises a first distal end section (321f or 321e) that holds the first annular axial bearing washer in a form-fitting manner.
While appearing to show a bearing assembly where the cage is a sheet metal material, Chiba does not explicitly state this.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the cage out of sheet metal material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In figure 3, Chiba does not disclose that one of the inner radial edge rim or the outer radial edge rim comprises a double-rim design with an end-side bend extending in a direction opposite to the axial direction, or in other words the rim is a folded over double thickness rim.
However, Chiba further teaches that the inner radial edge rim can be made by folding the rim over itself to create a double rim design (601b and 601e).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Chiba figure 3 and provide the inner radial edge rim with a folded over/double rim design, as later taught by Chiba figure 6, for the predictable result of increasing the rigidity of the cage. Doubling over a sheet material to increase the thickness also increases the rigidity of the part which can improve the performance of the part under operation conditions by limiting deformation due to centrifugal effects.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Chiba discloses that the first distal end section comprises a first rim border (321f) surrounding the first annular axial bearing washer (the corner of 321f overlaps the washer 301 and thus “at least partially surrounds”); and the other one of the inner or outer edge rim comprises a second distal end section with a second rim border (321e) surrounding the second annular axial bearing washer (the corner of 321e overlaps the washer 303) to hold the second annular axial bearing washer in a form-fitting manner (see explanation in claim 1/11 above).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, the recitation is defining how the part is formed and is thus a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2113. Chiba discloses the same final structure of a one piece cage element where the distal ends of the cage are bent features.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Chiba discloses that the first annular axial bearing washer (301) comprises a first radial edge shoulder (311b) that interacts with the first distal end section (321f) such that the first rim border does not project beyond a first outer side surface of the first annular axial bearing washer (the end of 321f is axial recessed from the top surface of 311c like in the instant application); the second annular axial bearing washer (303) comprises a second radial edge shoulder (303d) that interacts with the second distal end section (321e) such that the second rim border does not project beyond a second outer side surface of the second annular axial bearing washer (the end of 321e is axial recessed from the bottom surface of 303 like in the instant application).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Chiba discloses that the first rim border or the second rim border of the bearing cage surrounding the axial bearing washer is only formed in sections on part of the circumference or is formed of partial circumferential sections (see paragraph 0029 which discloses only part of the circumference has 321e, paragraph 0018 discusses only partially swagging the part to from 101e, only partially swagging the parts creates section(s) or region(s) with the rim boarder and others without the rim boarder). It is noted that Chiba does not illustrate these section(s), however Applicant’s attempting is directed toward JP2014-5919 that shows this feature in figure 1 where each indention is one rim boarder
Regarding claims 10 and 14, while disclosing what is likely a sheet metal part for the bearing washers, Chiba is silent as to what the parts are made out of. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the washers from sheet metal material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The remainder of the recitation of the claims are defining how the washer is made, not what it is made from, how the washers are made is a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba, JP11006522, in view of Matsushima, JP2014-5919.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Chiba does not disclose that the first distal end section is wall ironed and a first transition shoulder facing the first annular axial bearing washer between the one of the edge rims and the rim border forms a first predetermined bending point for enclosing the first annular washer or the second distal end is wall ironed and provided with a second transition shoulder facing the second washer forming the bending point. Again it is noted that “wall ironed” is a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2113.
Matsushima teaches that a connection between a bearing cage element and a raceway washer can be formed by providing the cage element with a reduced thickness distal end portion (at 49 in figure 12) that creates a transition shoulder (step between 49 and 48) between the distal end and the rest of the rim portion in order to create that bending point that encloses the corresponding washer element (26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Chiba and replace the distal end portion with any other previously known folded distal end portion shape that performs the same function, including one with a transition shoulder between the distal end region and the rest of the rim, as taught by Matsushima, since substituting between different known shapes for forming the connection structure to secure a cage to a bearing ring provides the same predictable result of fastening the parts together to form a unitary assembly. Substituting between different known bent end structures that perform the same function is not inventive.
Claim(s) 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba, JP11006522, in view of Brown, USP 9,933,010.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Chiba discloses that the first annular axial bearing washer and the second annular axial bearing washer have similar shapes however these shapes are mirrored and thus not identical.
Brown teaches that in a stacked and interlocked axial bearing that two adjacent washers (24 and 26) can have the identical shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Chiba and make the washer elements as identical elements, as taught by Brown, for the purpose and predicable result of simplifying manufacturing and assembly as the same washer can be produced and used for two separate components. Using identical parts removes the need for additional distinct manufacturing steps and sorting and organizing distinct parts prior to assembly of the components, using one manufacturing step and being able to use any part made during that step simplifies and reduces manufacturing time and cost.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba, JP11006522, in view of Waseda, JP2015-031390.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Chiba further discloses that the bearing cage comprises circumferential spaced bearing webs (cage material between adjacent elements 2 in figure 8) to enclose the rolling elements.
Chiba does not disclose that the webs each have a sigma profile such that the edge rims extend from one washer toward the other washer (both rims initially extend from the sigma profile in the same direction), the double rim design of one of the rim having a portion that extends back toward the one washer.
Waseda teaches that the cage pocket can be defined by webs having a sigma profile (see figure 1, dashed element) wherein both rims of the cage first extend in the same direction from one washer (3) toward the other washer (2, 53 and 54 extend from the sigma profile in the same direction) and the rim with the double rim design (54) includes an additional extension going from the other washer (2) toward the one washer (3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chiba and provide the cage webs with the sigma profile with both rims initially extending in the same direction, as taught by Waseda, since the use of sigma profiles are known to provided improved performance by providing better alignment and spacing of the rolling elements and can enhance the reliability and stability of the cage itself. In addition substituting between different know bearing cage web profiles is not inventive but a matter of routine substitution of one known shape for another with each providing the same function of spacing adjacent rollers apart.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba, JP11006522, in view of Griffin, WO2021/118879.
Regarding claim 9 and 13, Chiba does not disclose that the outer radial edge rim comprises circumferentially spaced lubricant breakthroughs.
Griffin teaches that a cage for an axial rolling bearing can include an outer edge rim (26) with a plurality of circumferential spaced lubricant breakthroughs (28) for the purpose of providing a means for lubricant to exit the bearing (see paragraph 0018).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Chiba and provide the outer rim with circumferentially spaced lubricant breakthroughs, as taught by Griffin, for the purpose of providing a means for lubricant to exit the bearing.
Double Patenting
Claims 2, 3, 15, 16, 19, 20 of this application are patentably indistinct from claims 3, 6, 14, 16 and 17 of Application No. 18/683268. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822. In this case there is only slight difference between the independent claims, in the instant case the independent claims call for only one rim to have the distal end feature however dependent claims call for the other end to also have this feature creating claim combinations between the two applications that cover the same subject matter. Since the subject matter being captured in some groupings of claims in the instant application is the same as that in the copending application the set of claims between the two applications includes claims that are patentable indistinct from one another.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USP 9,933,010, applied above, further discloses the use of sheet metal for all the parts.
USP 8,166,657 (figure 4) and USP 4,696,083 both disclose configurations were both rims are double wall rim designs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES PILKINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-5052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7-3.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617