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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 May 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the character of the lines, numbers, and letters are not sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well-defined as required by MPEP §608.02(V)(l). Drawings 1-8 have poor line quality. See Figure 5 below as an illustration of the poor line quality in the drawings. The poor line quality may be due to images that were downsampled.
PNG
media_image1.png
573
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner points out that the USPTO website has guidelines on how to submit drawing images for the best results. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-pdf-guidelines. Specifically, see the section which states:
It is recommended to use images saved in a lossless format (e.g., TIFF, PNG, GIF, BMP). It is strongly recommended that the PDF creation software does not downsample images during the PDF creation process, as this could degrade the quality of the image.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-15 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 recites “the recessed surface”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the sinking surface”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by over DE 20005228.
Re clm 1, DE ‘228 discloses a retainer (1, Fig. 1) for a bearing comprising a first ring and a second ring (for example, left and right sides of cage, Fig. 2), as well as multiple beams (portion of cage circumferentially between adjacent pockets) 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 first pressure slope (shown in annotated Fig. 2) and a second pressure slope (see annotated Fig. 2) spaced apart from each other, the pocket comprises a small end of the pocket (for containing the small diameter end of the tapered roller; also left end is radially smaller) and a large end of the pocket (for containing the large diameter end of the tapered roller) in a longitudinal direction, at the small end of the pocket, the side surface comprises the recessed surface (see annotated Fig. 2) extending from the first pressure slope towards the longitudinal centerline of the beam and towards the longitudinal end of the beam; and the side surface further comprises a first oil groove surface (rounded corner at left end of recessed surface) extending from the recessed surface at the small end of the pocket.
Re clm 2, DE ‘228 further discloses the recessed surface extends in an inclined plane from the first pressure slope towards the longitudinal centerline of the beam and towards the longitudinal end of the beam to form a dovetail groove (shown at 4 in Fig. 2).
Re clm 3, DE ‘228 further discloses the recessed surface sinks relative to the first pressure slope towards the longitudinal centerline of the beam to form a rectangular groove (since β varies between 0.5° to 5°; dashed line from which β is measured converges toward pocket center while solid line from which β is measured diverges, therefore there is an angle the provides parallel surfaces 4 forming a rectangular groove).
Re clm 9, DE ‘228 further discloses a length of the recessed surface in the longitudinal direction of the beam is 1/6 to ½ of a longitudinal length of the beam (LK is 35% to 50% length of LW).
Re clm 11¸ DE ‘228 further discloses the retainer is an integrally formed retainer.
Re clm 12, DE ‘228 further discloses a bearing (Fig. 1) comprising an outer ring, an inner ring, and a retainer according to claim 1, wherein the retainer is configured to hold a rolling element located between the inner ring and the outer ring (Fig. 1 is shown without an outer ring during assembly).
Re clm 13, DE ‘228 further discloses the bearing is a single row tapered-roller bearing (Fig. 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.
Claims 1-3, 7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20005228 in view of Shibazaki JP 2008-014335.
Assuming the first and second pressure slopes must have some structure imposed therebetween:
Re clm 1, DE ‘228 discloses a retainer (1, Fig. 1) for a bearing comprising a first ring and a second ring (for example, left and right sides of cage, Fig. 2), as well as multiple beams (portion of cage circumferentially between adjacent pockets) 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 comprising: a side surface (pocket edge) of the beam, the pocket comprises a small end of the pocket (for containing the small diameter end of the tapered roller) and a large end of the pocket (for containing the large diameter end of the tapered roller) in a longitudinal direction, at the small end of the pocket, the side surface comprises the recessed surface (see annotated Fig. 2) extending from the pressure slope (5) towards the longitudinal centerline of the beam and towards the longitudinal end of the beam; and the side surface further comprises a first oil groove surface (rounded corner at left end of recessed surface) extending from the recessed surface at the small end of the pocket.
DE ‘228 does not disclose the side surface of the beam in the circumferential direction comprises a first pressure slope and a second pressure slope spaced apart from each other.
Shibazaki teaches two spaced apart pressure slopes (22/32 and 23/33, Fig. 3 and 4) for the purpose of reducing the contact area between the rolling surface of the roller and the cage while suppressing skew of the tapered roller ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the single pressure slope of DE ‘228 with the space apart double pressure slope of Shibazaki and provide a first pressure slope and a second pressure slope spaced apart from each other for the purpose of reducing the contact area between the rolling surface of the roller and the cage while suppressing skew of the tapered roller.
Re clm 2, DE ‘228 further discloses the recessed surface extends in an inclined plane from the first pressure slope towards the longitudinal centerline of the beam and towards the longitudinal end of the beam to form a dovetail groove (shown at 4 in Fig. 2).
Re clm 3, DE ‘228 further discloses the recessed surface sinks relative to the first pressure slope towards the longitudinal centerline of the beam to form a rectangular groove (since β varies between 0.5° to 5°; dashed line from which β is measured converges toward pocket center while solid line from which β is measured diverges, therefore there is an angle the provides parallel surfaces 4 forming a rectangular groove).
Re clm 7, the improvement of Shibazaki further discloses a second oil groove surface extending from the second pressure slope at the large end of the pocket (Fig. 4).
Re clm 9, DE ‘228 further discloses a length of the recessed surface in the longitudinal direction of the beam is 1/6 to ½ of a longitudinal length of the beam (LK is 35% to 50% length of LW).
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 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).
Re clm 11¸ DE ‘228 further discloses the retainer is an integrally formed retainer.
Re clm 12, DE ‘228 further discloses a bearing (Fig. 1) comprising an inner ring, and a retainer according to claim 1, wherein the retainer is configured to hold a rolling element located between the inner ring and the outer ring (Fig. 1 is shown without an outer ring during assembly).
Although DE ‘228 discloses Figure 1 is during assembly “without an outer ring”, which the examiner understands to mean that the bearing after assembly would include the outer ring, DE ‘228 does not explicitly show or positively recite an outer ring outside the statement regarding Fig. 1.
Shibazaki discloses using an outer ring (104, Fig. 5) for a tapered bearing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify DE ‘228 and provide an outer ring for the purpose of providing an opposing outer surface on which the tapered elements roll.
Re clm 13, both DE ‘228 and Shibazaki further discloses the bearing is a single row tapered-roller bearing (Fig. 1 of DE ‘228; Fig. 5 of Shibazaki).
Re clm 14, the improvement of Shibazaki further discloses the side surface further comprises a sinking surface (concave shape formed between 22/32 and 23/33, Fig. 3 and 4) located between the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope and recessed relative to the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20005228 or DE 20005228 in view of Shibazaki JP 2008-014335 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Isobe WO 2020/184291 (U.S. 2022/0154767 as English Equivalent).
DE ‘228 or DE ‘228 in view of Shibazaki discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 4, DE ‘228 is silent as to the radial profile of the pocket and does not disclose the side surface further includes transition slopes, which extends from the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope in a radial direction of the retainer, respectively.
Isobe teaches a cage comprising the side surface further includes transition slopes, which extends from the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope in a radial direction of the retainer, respectively for the purpose of providing a guide surface for contacting the roller surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the invention to modify DE ‘228 and provide the side surface further includes transition slopes, which extends from the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope in a radial direction of the retainer, respectively for the purpose of providing a guide surface for contacting the roller surface.
Claims 1, 7-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibazaki JP 2008-14335 in view of Fischer WO 2007/065402.
Re clm 1, Shibazaki discloses a retainer (10/20/30, Fig. 1-4) for a bearing comprising a first ring and a second ring (11 and 12), as well as multiple beams (21 and 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 (circumferential facing surface of 33) and a second pressure slope (circumferential facing surface of 32) spaced apart from each other, the pocket comprises a small end of the pocket (bottom) and a large end of the pocket (top) in a longitudinal direction, at the small end of the pocket, the side surface comprises the recessed surface (bottom surface of 33 facing 34) extending from the first pressure slope; and the side surface further comprises a first oil groove surface (left and right bottoms of recess between 33s and 34) extending from the recessed surface at the small end of the pocket.
Shibazaki does not disclose the recessed surface extending from the first pressure slope towards the longitudinal centerline of the beam and towards the longitudinal end of the beam.
Fischer teaches a pressure slope geometry in which the sides extend from the first pressure slope towards the longitudinal centerline of the beam and towards the longitudinal end of the beam (as shown in Fig. 10). This shape reinforces the pressure slope elements by providing a larger base that contacts the beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rectangular shape of the pressure slope elements of Shibazaki with the trapezoidal shape of Fischer and provide the recessed surface extending from the first pressure slope towards the longitudinal centerline of the beam and towards the longitudinal end of the beam for the purpose of reinforcing the pressure slope elements by providing a larger base that contacts the beam.
Re clm 7, Shibazaki further discloses a second oil groove surface extending from the second pressure slope at the large end of the pocket (slop above 32, Fig. 4).
Re clm 8, 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 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 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).
Re clm 11, Shibazaki further discloses the retainer is an integrally formed retainer (Fig. 1-4).
Re clm 12, Shibazaki further discloses a bearing (Fig. 5) comprising an outer ring (104), an inner ring (103), and a retainer (102) according to claim 1, wherein the retainer is configured to hold a rolling element 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).
Re clm 14, Shibazaki further discloses the side surface further comprises a sinking surface (between 32 and 33, Fig. 4) located between the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope and recessed relative to the first pressure slope and the second pressure slope.
Re clm 15, 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 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the recessed surface of Shibazaki extends away from the longitudinal center of the beam 31. The examiner assumes that the surface in Applicant’s argument is the “left” or “right” facing surface of the recess formed between 33 and 34. The recess between 33 and 34 is formed of three surfaces, any one of which could be considered a “recessed surface”. If the bottom surface of element 33 which faces 34 of Fig. 4 is considered to be the recessed surface, then it extends from the pressure slope toward the longitudinal centerline of the beam. Then Fischer is added to teach such a surface as a tapered surface which then provides the surface extending toward the end of the beam.
Shibazaki does indeed disclose that the first oil groove surface extends from the recessed surface of the small end of the pocket. Providing Shibazaki with the sloped/tapered side surfaces on the pressure slope element then allows the “left” or “right” facing surface to be an oil groove surface.
Perhaps Applicant should claim that the recessed surface is configured to allow the each roller to pivot in the pocket during installation such that the small end of the rolling elements move radially outward relative to the small ends of the rollers during operation/after installation. Claiming this in combination with the offset distance between the center of the sinking surface and the center of the beam to overcome DE ‘228 and Shibazaki.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights