Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 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.
The term “standard crowning” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “standard” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What degree or range of crowning rates are considered “standard”? Or is this in reference to a shape, if so what is that “standard” shape?
Regarding claim 1, the amendment defines the rolling element as having either a standard crowned profile or a mixed logarithmic profile in lines 7-8 of the claim. However the end of the claim makes a comparison of the crowning of the rolling element and the outer ring but this is done only referencing the standard crowning. It is unclear if this recitation is now an attempt to negate the alternative earlier in the claim or would this recitation be a conditional requirement that is only required if the first alternative in lines 7-8 is present but not required if a mixed profile is used.
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.
Claim(s) 1, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuyama, US PGPub 2007/0041678.
Regarding claim 1, Matsuyama discloses a roller bearing, comprising: and inner ring (10) comprising an inner raceway (11) having a profile selected from among a logarithmic profile having a raised plane (9) or a mixed logarithmic profile defined by a profile having a logarithmic curved which further comprises a convex bulge in a center portion forming a secondary crowned surface (paragraphs 0037-0042 discloses logarithmic crowning, the crowning raising a surface of the raceway and thus forming a raised plane); rolling elements (30) comprising a head (33) and a rolling element raceway (31) having a profile selected from a standard crowned profiled (figure 5a and 5b show the roller crowning along surface 31, as best understood this is a standard crowning shape) or a mixed logarithmic profile; a sliding track (13) provided on a flange (12) of the inner ring (10) for contact with the head (33) of rolling elements (30), the sliding track having a surface geometry selected between straight or crowned (the surface of 13 is slightly curved thus forming a slight crowning, note the term crowned or crowning is not limited to any particular shape or size, any form of curve can be considered a crowning); an outer ring (2) comprising an outer raceway (21) having a crowned profile (figures 6a and 6b), wherein the crowned profile has a height or deflection that is greater than the deflection of the standard crowning profile of the rolling element raceway (see paragraph 0060 disclosing how the total crowning rates of each part are calculated and then paragraph 0072 disclosing that the outer ring rate is 40% while the roller element is 20%, thus the amount of crowning on the outer ring is greater than that of the roller element, because of this the outer ring surface deflects more than the rollers); and a cage (40) between the inner ring (10) and the outer ring (20).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama, US PGPub 2007/0041678, in view of Hayashi, USP 10,378,580.
Matsuyama, while disclosing a cage, does not disclose that the cage is made of a polymer material of the polyamide type.
Hayashi teaches that cages can be made of various different types of polyamides (see column 11, lines 9-28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Matsuyama and make the cage out of any previously known material used for cages, including polyamide, as taught by Hayashi, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Matsuyama does not disclose the specific surface geometries of the claim, specifically pointing to what Applicant concludes are arch type crowning references in the disclosure and thus not logarithmic “profiles”.
First, the only surface definitively required to have a logarithmic profile is the inner ring, the rest of the surfaces in the claim can be “crowned” or have “standard crowned profile”. Paragraph 0042 of the disclosure of Matsuyama clearly states that the inner ring crowning is not limited to any particular shape and could include logarithmic crowning.
Because of this disclosure in Matsuyama the reference does indeed anticipate a claim combination that would include “standard crowning” on all parts while the inner ring can includes a logarithmic profile.
Applicant further supports the argument later in the remarks by referencing to what Applicant views as a disclosure of standard arc crowning but again none of these arguments specifically address paragraph 0042 which clearly states that the inner ring crowning is not limited in shape and can include the claimed profile.
Applicant then argues the newly added/amended recitation regarding the height/deflection of the outer race crowning relative to the roller crowning. However, it is first noted that this recitation uses the “standard” profile language which is indefinite as noted above. Applicant further appears to be acknowledging the presence in the disclosure of the different crowning rate percentages but argues that this is not related to height, however the claim states height or deflection, if the crowning which is a deflection is present at a higher rate on one object vs another then the amount of the deflection (or total change) would also be higher on the part with the greater rate. Applicant is arguing as if the claim has no alternatives at all which is not consistent with the claim itself which sets forth a number of alternatives, at least one of these is covered by Matsuyama as explained above.
Applicant further argues that the flange/rib of Matsuyama is concave and thus not crowned. However crowning comes in two forms, concave or convex, relative to the flange the claim does not specify any particular type of crowning and thus the concave crowning of Matsuyama anticipates the claim. In anticipation of further arguments or additional claim amendments regarding this feature see references previously cited in the PTO-892, such as USP 10,816,034.
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 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