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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 29, 2026 has been entered.
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 previous term “standard crowning” has been replace by the phrase “higher than a flatter crowned profile” in claim 1, however this phrasing remains relative which renders the claim indefinite. The term “flatter crowned profile” 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 is the crowned profile flatter relative to? Without knowing what a flatter crowned profile is it is unclear how the metes and bounds of “higher” can be established. If the starting point is unknown it cannot be determined what the convex bulge must be higher than.
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 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 (upon further review the profile shown in figure 3a can be viewed as having logarithmic end profiles between A and A’ and B and B’ with the span between A’ and B’ being considered a secondary crowned profile, this shape is similar to the mixed profile as defined in the instant application); rolling elements (30) comprising a head (33) and a rolling element raceway (31) having a mixed logarithmic profile (the spans defined by S1 and S2 can be viewed as logarithmic curved regions and 31, span defined by LWR is disclosed as having a slight crowning, this would be a mixed profile just like in the instant application); a sliding track (13) provided on a flange (12) of the inner ring (10) for contact with the head (33) of rolling elements (30), wherein the sliding track has a convex profile (the upper portion of 13 defining the corner and the top of the sliding contact region in figure 2 is convex, however see the alternative rejection below); an outer ring (2) comprising an outer raceway (21) having a crowned profile (figures 6a and 6b) comprising a convex bulge that is higher than a flatter crowned profile (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 is considered to bulge more than (higher) a flatter crowned surface such as that on the roller element); 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.
In the alternative:
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama, US PGPub 2007/0041678, in view of Kawai, USP 10,968,947.
Regarding claim 1, Matsuyama discloses a roller bearing, comprising: and inner ring (10) comprising an inner raceway (11) having 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 (upon further review the profile shown in figure 3a can be viewed as having logarithmic end profiles between A and A’ and B and B’ with the span between A’ and B’ being considered a secondary crowned profile, this shape is similar to the mixed profile as defined in the instant application); rolling elements (30) comprising a head (33) and a rolling element raceway (31) having a mixed logarithmic profile (the spans defined by S1 and S2 can be viewed as logarithmic curved regions and 31, span defined by LWR is disclosed as having a slight crowning, this would be a mixed profile just like in the instant application); a sliding track (13) provided on a flange (12) of the inner ring (10) for contact with the head (33) of rolling elements (30), wherein the sliding track has a convex profile (the upper portion of 13 defining the corner and the top of the sliding contact region in figure 2 is convex); an outer ring (2) comprising an outer raceway (21) having a crowned profile (figures 6a and 6b) comprising a convex bulge that is higher than a flatter crowned profile (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 is considered to bulger more than (higher) a flatter crowned surface such as that on the roller element); and a cage (40) between the inner ring (10) and the outer ring (20).
However, while the surface of the flange can be considered as convex as explained above, Matsuyama does not disclose that the entirety of the surface is convex.
Kawai discloses various shapes for the contact flange on the inner ring of a roller bearing including making the surface convex (surface 12 as shown in figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Matsuyama and use a flange surface that is entirely convex, as taught by Kawai, since substituting between different known surface geometries provides the same predictable result of providing a sliding contact surface to guide the roller. Furthermore Kawai acknowledges that straight, concave and convex surfaces are interchangeable with each providing “excellent wedge effect of lubricating oil” between the end surface of the roller and the flange surface, substituting between different known alternatives is not inventive.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama, US PGPub 2007/0041678, in view of Kawai, USP 10,968,947, as applied to claim 1, and further 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 June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Matsuyama does not disclose the claimed mixed logarithmic profiled comprising a logarithmic curve and a convex bulge defining a second crowned surface.
Applicant supports the argument by stating that the Examiner has relied upon paragraph 0042 of Matsuyama for support of a “mixed logarithmic profile” however this not what the previous rejection stated. The “mixed” profile previously claimed was part of a list of alternatives, this particular alternative that the claim is now limited to was not addressed in the previous rejection.
With regards to the claim now being limited only to mixed logarithmic profiles for the inner ring and the rolling element, the meaning of the term in light of the disclosure is directed toward a curvature that includes logarithmic profile(s) at the axial end of the raceway and roller with a crowning in between the axial ends, this crowning is referenced as the secondary crowned surface. Reviewing Matsuyama, figure 3a clearly shows distinct curved regions as explained above. The phrase “logarithmic profile” also does not explicitly limit the curve to any shape as any curvature can have a logarithmic expression written to describe it. Thus, in light of the disclosure and the lack of specificity defining any particular curvature shape the distinct zones in Matsuyama would be applicable to the claimed invention. This same reasoning holds true for the roller element as illustrated in figure 5a and explained in the rejection above.
Newly cited documents US PGPub 2020/0158167, figure 4, specifically the roller crowning line, USP 10,288,114, figure 3, USP 10,731,703, figure 5 all show “mixed logarithmic profiles” that more closely match the shapes illustrated by the instant application, these references further support the position that the profile now being claimed is not new, novel or inventive.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights