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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-8 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pflandl (US 10408259 B1) alone.
Regarding claim 1, Pflandl discloses (in annotated fig. 2 and figs. 3-5) the inner ring (2) for a self-aligning roller bearing (1), the inner ring (2) comprising:
a rotational center axis (X),
a raceway (raceway of 2) configured to receive roller elements (4),
a retaining flange (21) provided at a first axial side of the raceway (raceway of 2),
the retaining flange (21) being configured to prevent the roller elements (4) from falling out from a first axial opening (Ax) between the inner ring (2) and an outer ring (3),
a filling slot (22, col. 4 lines 62-66) in the retaining flange (21),
the filling slot (22) being configured to allow roller elements (4) to be inserted between the inner ring (2) and the outer ring (3) during an assembly of the roller bearing (1),
a first axial end face (FAE),
and a seal surface (23) having a first end at the first axial end face (FAE) and a second end at the retaining flange (21)
the seal surface (23) meeting the retaining flange (21) at a seal surface (23) connecting portion (CP),
the seal surface (23) being configured to be contacted by a sealing lip (521 in fig. 4),
wherein the retaining flange (21) has a flange width (FW) between the seal surface connecting portion (CP) and a raceway connecting portion (RCP),
and wherein the raceway connecting portion (RCP) has a first radius (R1) and the retaining flange (21) has a flange radius (R2) from the rotational center axis (X).
Pflandl does not disclose the flange radius (R2) is from 100.2% to 103.7% of the first radius (R1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the flange radius (R2) be from 100.2% to 103.7% of the first radius (R1), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the flange radius (R2) be from 100.2% to 103.7% of the first radius (R1), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific size of the flange solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (the claimed dimension lacks any clear criticality) and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless if the flange radius is from 100.2% to 103.7% of the first radius or not. Since if the flange is too big relative to the bearing, it might prevent the bearing from operating correctly and if the flange is too small relative to the bearing, it would not hold anything together.
PNG
media_image1.png
471
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Pflandl teaches (in annotated fig. 3) the inner ring (2) according to claim 1, wherein the filling slot (22) extends from a top surface (TS) of the retaining flange (21) to a filling slot radius (R3) from the rotational center axis (X).
Pflandl does not teach the filling slot radius (R3) is from 100.1% to 103.5% of the first radius (R1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filling slot radius (R3) be from 100.1% to 103.5% of the first radius (R1), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the filling slot radius (R3) be from 100.1% to 103.5% of the first radius (R1), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific size of the flange solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (the claimed dimension lacks any clear criticality) and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless if the filling slot radius is from 100.1% to 103.5% of the first radius or not. If the filling slot is too big, the roller elements would fall out during operation and if the filling slot is too small, the rolling elements would not be able to inserted in between the inner and outer bearing ring elements during assembly of the roller bearing.
PNG
media_image2.png
427
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Pflandl teaches (in annotated fig. 2 and annotated fig. 3) the inner ring (2) according to claim 1, the inner ring (2) has an axial center axis (D) and a ring width (D1) from the axial center axis (D) to the first axial end face (FAE), and wherein the raceway connecting portion (RCP) is located at an axial distance (D2) from the first axial end face (FAE).
Pflandl does not teach the axial distance (D2) is from 14% to 16% of the ring width (D1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the axial distance (D2) be from 14% to 16% of the ring width (D1), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the axial distance (D2) be from 14% to 16% of the ring width (D1), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific size of the flange solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (the claimed dimension lacks any clear criticality) and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless if the axial distance is 14% to 16% of the ring width or not. For example, if the axial distance is too big compared to the ring width, the roller elements can move too much and cause noise, but if the axial distance is too small compared to the ring width, the roller elements might not fit in flange correctly.
Regarding claim 4, Pflandl teaches the inner ring (2) for a self-aligning roller bearing (1) according to claim 3 but does not teach the flange width (D3) is from 7% to 10% of the axial distance (D2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the flange width (D3) be from 7% to 10% of the axial distance (D2), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the flange width (D3) be from 7% to 10% of the axial distance (D2), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific size of the flange solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (the claimed dimension lacks any clear criticality) and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless if the flange width is from 7% to 10% of the axial distance or not. For example, if the flange width is too big compared to axial distance, it can cause the bearing to not be operated correctly as the roller elements might not fit but if the flange width is too small compared to the axial distance, the roller elements can rattle during operation and also not fit correctly.
Regarding claim 5, Pflandl teaches (in annotated fig. 2) the inner ring (2) for a self-aligning roller bearing (1) according to claim 1, wherein the seal surface (23) has a seal surface width (D4), but does not teach the seal surface width (D4) is from 62% to 74% of the axial distance (D2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the seal surface width (D4) be from 62% to 74% of the axial distance (D2), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the seal surface width (D4) be from 62% to 74% of the axial distance (D2), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific size of the flange solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (the claimed dimension lacks any clear criticality) and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless if the seal surface width is from 62% to 74% of the axial distance or not. For example, if the seal surface is too big compared to the axial distance, the sealing surface can have good sealing protection but it can generate too much friction. However, if the seal surface is too small compared to the axial distance the sealing surface can have reduce friction at the expense of sealing effectiveness. The optimal choice depends on the bearing’s application’s speed, level of contamination and maintenance requirements.
Regarding claim 6, Pflandl teaches a self-aligning roller bearing (1) comprising: an inner ring (2) according to claim 1, an outer ring (3) located radially outside of the inner ring (2), and defining with the inner ring (2) a first axial opening (Ax) therebetween, a plurality of roller elements (4) between and in rolling contact with the inner ring (2) and the outer ring (3), and a cage (6) for retaining the roller elements (4).
Regarding claim 7, Pflandl teaches (in fig. 5) the self-aligning roller bearing (1) according to claim 6, wherein the cage (6) is a crown type cage (6).
Regarding claim 8, Pflandl teaches the self-aligning roller bearing (1) according to claim 6, further comprising a seal (5) extending from the outer ring (3) to the seal surface (23) of the inner ring (2).
Regarding claim 11, Pflandl teaches the inner ring (2) according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the flange radius (R2) is from 101% to 103% of the first radius (R1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the flange radius be from 101% to 103% of the first radius, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the flange radius be from 101% to 103% of the first radius, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific size of the flange solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (the claimed dimension lacks any clear criticality) and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless if the flange radius is from 101% to 103% of the first radius or not. Since if the flange is too big relative to the bearing, it might prevent the bearing from operating correctly and if the flange is too small relative to the bearing, it would not hold anything together.
Regarding claim 12, Pflandl teaches the inner ring (2) according to claim 3 but does not teach wherein the axial distance (D2) is about 15% of the ring width (D1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the axial distance (D2) be about 15% of the ring width (D1), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the axial distance (D2) be about 15% of the ring width (D1), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific size of the flange solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (the claimed dimension lacks any clear criticality) and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless if the axial distance is 15% of the ring width or not. For example, if the axial distance is too big compared to the ring width, the roller elements can move too much and cause noise, but if the axial distance is too small compared to the ring width, the roller elements might not fix in flange correctly.
Regarding claim 13, Pflandl teaches the inner ring (2) according to claim 5, wherein there is the seal surface (23) but does not teach the seal surface width (D4) is from 66% to 72% of the axial distance (D2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a seal surface width (D4) be from 66% to 72% of the axial distance (D2), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a seal surface width (D4) be from 66% to 72% of the axial distance (D2), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific size of the flange solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (the claimed dimension lacks any clear criticality) and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless if the seal surface width is from 66% to 72% of the axial distance or not. For example, if the seal surface is too big compared to the axial distance, the sealing surface can have good sealing protection but it can generate too much friction. However, if the seal surface is too small compared to the axial distance the sealing surface can have reduce friction at the expense of sealing effectiveness. The optimal choice depends on the bearing’s application’s speed, level of contamination and maintenance requirements.
Regarding claim 14, Pflandl teaches the inner ring (2) according to claim 5, wherein there is the seal surface (23) but does not teach the seal surface width (D4) being is from 68% to 70% of the axial distance (D2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a seal surface width (D4) be from 68% to 70% of the axial distance (D2), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a seal surface width (D4) be from 68% to 70% of the axial distance (D2), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific size of the flange solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (the claimed dimension lacks any clear criticality) and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless if the seal surface width is from 68% to 70% of the axial distance or not. For example, if the seal surface is too big compared to the axial distance, the sealing surface can have good sealing protection but it can generate too much friction. However, if the seal surface is too small compared to the axial distance the sealing surface can have reduce friction at the expense of sealing effectiveness. The optimal choice depends on the bearing’s application’s speed, level of contamination and maintenance requirements.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the claim objections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argued on page 6 that the flange is not directed to having any particular “size”. However, in this case, radius is defining the distance from the central axis, which is just a change in height of the two parts relative to each other. The flange radius would change the height of the flange and affect whether the flange is “large” or “small” height wise.
Applicant next argued that the flange radius is critical to the invention of claim 1 and that it is not appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale of obvious determination. Applicant further explained that the claimed ratio is critical because in the past, the design of the inner ring was different if the bearing had a seal or not and that the claimed ratio (in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1) provided a bearing inner ring that was well suited for both open and sealed bearings even if it was not optimal for either one. However, it is not dependent on solely the height of the flange as different seals can be used based on different height configurations. Explaining why a range is being used does not matter unless there is explicit criticality. Using a desired height because it works for the invention is not criticality. Taking the seal out of the invention would still allow the self-aligning roller bearing to function as a self-aligning roller bearing.
Applicant then argued on page 7 why Aller cannot be used in the rejection as Applicant believes that the radius of the raceway connecting portion and the flange radius is not a result-effective variable. Applicant then asked “if a person of ordinary skill in the art varies the ratio recited in claim 1, what result would occur and when will the variable be considered to have been “optimized”?” The variable would be considered with the roller size in mind and whether or not it fit well between the inner and outer ring. The ratio cannot result in the flange being bigger than the space that it must be retained in, so ultimately the range is capped to an obvious value depending on the space the flange is being used in.
Applicant argued on pages 7-8 that Rose is inapposite and provides no support for the present rejection and that Claim 1 recites the specific ratio of the two radii and does not claim a larger version of a known object. Applicant requests that the examiner provide evidence of a line of reasoning to show how the holding of Rose is applicable to the facts of the present Application. As stated earlier, “radius” in the instant application means that it’s a radius from the center or in other words, the heights of the parts. The instant application and the prior art has the same structure and thus it is just a change of height of the flange, which is considered a change of size as height affects the flange size.
Applicant argued on pages 8-9 that Gardner has no expert testimony or other evidence of record in the present application that "a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device” and requested that the examiner explain how the facts of Gardner are relevant to the present claims and also provide evidence or a line of reasoning for the examiner's conclusion that the bearing ring of claim 1 "would not perform differently than the prior art device," which was a necessary part of the decision in Gardner. The invention would perform the same function of self-aligning to accommodate misalignment since they are both self-aligning bearings. The function does not change if the height of the flange gets taller as both of the inventions would still self-align. However, as explain earlier, the height cannot be so tall to cause interferences in the space where the flange is in, so the height needs to be optimized to be used in the roller bearing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AIMEE T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 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 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.
/AIMEE TRAN NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights