DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibazaki JP 2008-14335.
Re clm 1, Shibazaki discloses a retainer (Fig. 1 and 4) for a bearing comprising a first ring (34) and a second ring (36), as well as multiple beams (31) connecting the first ring and the second ring, wherein the multiple beams are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction of the retainer, and a pocket (14) for accommodating a rolling element (101, Fig. 5) of the bearing is defined between adjacent beams, characterized in that: a side surface of the beam in the circumferential direction comprises a first pressure slope (33) and a second pressure slope (32) spaced apart from each other, as well as a recessed surface (gap between 32 and 36; gap between 33 and 34) provided at one or two ends of the pocket, the recessed surface extends from the first pressure slope towards a longitudinal centerline of the beam and towards a longitudinal end of the beam, the side surface further comprises a sinking surface (recessed surface of 31 axially between 32 and 33) located between the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope and recessed relative to the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope; a center of the sinking surface in a longitudinal direction of the beam is offset relative to a center of the beam in the longitudinal direction (as shown in Fig. 4).
Re clm 3, Shibazaki further discloses the recessed surface (gap between 33 and 34) sinks relative to the first pressure slope towards the longitudinal centerline of the beam to form a rectangular groove (shown in Fig. 4).
Re clm 5, Shibazaki further discloses the pocket comprises a small end of the pocket (bottom of pocket, Fig. 4) and a large end of the pocket (top of pocket) in a longitudinal direction, at the small end of the pocket, the side surface comprises the recessed surface (gap between 33 and 34) extending from the first pressure slope towards the longitudinal centerline of the beam and towards the longitudinal end of the beam.
Re clm 11, Shibazaki further discloses the retainer is an integrally formed retainer (Fig. 1 and 4).
Re clm 12, Shibazaki further discloses a bearing (Fig. 5) comprising an outer ring (104), an inner ring (103), and a retainer (Fig. 4) according to claim 1, wherein the retainer is configured to hold a rolling element (101) located between the inner ring and the outer ring.
Re clm 13, Shibazaki further discloses the bearing is a single row tapered-roller bearing (Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isobe WO 2020/184291 (U.S. 2022/0154767 as English Equivalent) in view of Shibazaki JP 2008-14335.
Re clm 1, Isobe discloses a retainer (5, Fig. 1 and 2) for a bearing comprising a first ring (7) and a second ring (6), as well as multiple beams (8) connecting the first ring and the second ring, wherein the multiple beams are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction of the retainer, and a pocket (9) for accommodating a rolling element (4) of the bearing is defined between adjacent beams, characterized in that: a side surface of the beam in the circumferential direction comprises a recessed surface (11b) provided at one or two ends of the pocket, the recessed surface (11b) extends towards a longitudinal centerline of the beam and towards a longitudinal end of the beam (shown in Fig. 3c).
Isobe does not disclose a first pressure slope and a second pressure slope spaced apart from each other, the recessed surface extends from the first pressure slope, the side surface further comprises a sinking surface located between the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope and recessed relative to the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope; a center of the sinking surface in a longitudinal direction of the beam is offset relative to a center of the beam in the longitudinal direction.
Shibazaki teaches a retainer comprising a first pressure slope (33, Fig. 4) and a second pressure slope (32) spaced apart from each other, the recessed surface (gap between 32 and 35 and/or gap between 33 and 34) extends from the first pressure slope (33), the side surface further comprises a sinking surface (recessed surface of 31 axially between 32 and 33) located between the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope and recessed relative to the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope; a center of the sinking surface in a longitudinal direction of the beam is offset relative to a center of the beam in the longitudinal direction (as shown in Fig. 4) for the purpose of reducing the contact area between the rolling surface of the roller and the cage while suppressing the skew of the tapered roller ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the single contact guide of Isobe with the double contact guide of Shibazaki and provide a first pressure slope and a second pressure slope spaced apart from each other, the recessed surface extends from the first pressure slope, the side surface further comprises a sinking surface located between the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope and recessed relative to the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope; a center of the sinking surface in a longitudinal direction of the beam is offset relative to a center of the beam in the longitudinal direction for the purpose of reducing the contact area between the rolling surface of the roller and the cage while suppressing the skew of the tapered roller.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re clm 2, Isobe in view of Shibazaki further discloses the recessed surface (11b of Isobe) extends in an inclined plane from the first pressure slope (analogous to one of the axial ends of contact surface 11a) towards the longitudinal centerline of the beam and towards the longitudinal end of the beam to form a dovetail groove (11b forms a dovetail, see especially Fig. 2).
Re clm 4, Isobe further discloses the side surface further includes transition slopes (11a, Fig. 4-5a, Isobe), which extends from the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope in a radial direction of the retainer, respectively.
Re clm 5, Isobe further discloses the pocket comprises a small end (left end, Fig. 2; left end is radially smaller than right end; also, small end of tapered roller is at left end) of the pocket and a large end (right end) of the pocket in a longitudinal direction.
Isobe in view of Shibazaki further discloses at the small end of the pocket, the side surface comprises the recessed surface extending from the first pressure slope towards the longitudinal centerline of the beam and towards the longitudinal end of the beam.
Re clm 7, Isobe in view of Shibazaki further discloses a second oil groove (11b at right end of 2) extending from the second pressure slope at the other end of the pocket.
Re clm 8, the improvement of Shibazaki further discloses an offset distance between the center of the sinking surface in the longitudinal direction of the beam and the center of the beam in the longitudinal direction (as shown in Fig. 3 and 4 due to different widths a and b) and that the values are result effective variables ([0017]). Since the offset distance is a function of the widths a and b, the offset is also a result effective variable.
Shibazaki does not state that the offset distance is within 20% of the longitudinal length of the beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Isobe in view of Shibazaki and provide the offset distance is within 20% of the longitudinal length of the beam, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Re clm 10, the improvement of Shibazaki further discloses the length of the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope is a result effective variable ([0017]).
Shibazaki does not disclose a length of the first pressure slope and/or the second pressure slope in the longitudinal direction of the beam is greater than 1/6 of a longitudinal length of the beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Isobe in view of Shibazaki and provide a length of the first pressure slope and/or the second pressure slope in the longitudinal direction of the beam is greater than 1/6 of a longitudinal length of the beam, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 1-2, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20005228 in view of Shibazaki JP 2008-14335.
Re clm 1, DE’228 discloses a retainer (1, Fig. 1 and 2) for a bearing comprising a first ring (left annular ring of 1) and a second ring (right annular ring of 1), as well as multiple beams (at either side of pocket 2) connecting the first ring and the second ring, wherein the multiple beams are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction of the retainer, and a pocket (2) for accommodating a rolling element (3) of the bearing is defined between adjacent beams, characterized in that: a side surface of the beam in the circumferential direction comprises a recessed surface (at 4) provided at one or two ends of the pocket, the recessed surface extends towards a longitudinal centerline of the beam and towards a longitudinal end of the beam (shown in Fig. 2).
DE ‘228 does not disclose a first pressure slope and a second pressure slope spaced apart from each other, the recessed surface extends from the first pressure slope, the side surface further comprises a sinking surface located between the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope and recessed relative to the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope; a center of the sinking surface in a longitudinal direction of the beam is offset relative to a center of the beam in the longitudinal direction.
Shibazaki teaches a retainer comprising a first pressure slope (33, Fig. 4) and a second pressure slope (32) spaced apart from each other, the recessed surface (gap between 32 and 35 and/or gap between 33 and 34) extends from the first pressure slope (33), the side surface further comprises a sinking surface (recessed surface of 31 axially between 32 and 33) located between the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope and recessed relative to the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope; a center of the sinking surface in a longitudinal direction of the beam is offset relative to a center of the beam in the longitudinal direction (as shown in Fig. 4) for the purpose of reducing the contact area between the rolling surface of the roller and the cage while suppressing the skew of the tapered roller ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the single contact guide of DE ‘228 with the double contact guide of Shibazaki and provide a first pressure slope and a second pressure slope spaced apart from each other, the recessed surface extends from the first pressure slope, the side surface further comprises a sinking surface located between the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope and recessed relative to the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope; a center of the sinking surface in a longitudinal direction of the beam is offset relative to a center of the beam in the longitudinal direction for the purpose of reducing the contact area between the rolling surface of the roller and the cage while suppressing the skew of the tapered roller.
Re clm 2, DE ‘228 in view of Shibazaki further discloses the recessed surface (at 4 of DE ‘228) extends in an inclined plane from the first pressure slope (analogous to the left axial end of contact surface 5) towards the longitudinal centerline of the beam and towards the longitudinal end of the beam to form a dovetail groove (see especially Fig. 2).
Re clm 5, DE ‘228 further discloses the pocket comprises a small end (left end, Fig. 2; left end is radially smaller than right end; also, small end of tapered roller is at left end) of the pocket and a large end (right end) of the pocket in a longitudinal direction.
DE ‘228 in view of Shibazaki further discloses at the small end of the pocket, the side surface comprises the recessed surface extending from the first pressure slope towards the longitudinal centerline of the beam and towards the longitudinal end of the beam.
Re clm 9, DE ‘228 further discloses a length of the recessed surface in the longitudinal direction of the beam is 1/6 to 1/2 of a longitudinal length of the beam (35% to 50%; page 2: second to last paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Dependent claim 3 was previously indicated as allowable, however, Applicant has removed claim limitations from independent parent claim 1. The scope of newly amended claim 3 (via amendments to claim 1) is not the same as that of the claim 3 which was indicated as allowable. Furthermore, newly amended claim 3 does not at least include all the previous limitations of the claim 3 which was indicated as allowable. Thus, the allowability of claim 3 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 ALAN B WAITS whose telephone number is (571)270-3664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6-4 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John R Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN B WAITS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617