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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The current specification uses a reference character “20c” to designate both “shoulder” and “crater”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyun (WO2013119044) of which attached English translation is cited in view of Yan (CN103836067) of which attached English translation is cited.
Regarding Claim 1, Pyun teaches a method for prolonging the life of a product (Page 2, “TECH-PROBLEM”: bearing) (page 3, lines 46-48: improved performance and life) having a metal surface (page 3, line 20: general bearing steel) (page 3, line 1: surface of the raceway wheel) that is subjected to Hertzian contact stress when in use (Hertzian contact stress is caused in bearing when the localized compressive and shear stresses develop where rolling elements (such as balls or cylinders) press against raceways under an applied load), the metal surface having a mean surface profile (page 1, last paragraph (“Technical-Field”): surface before shot peening), the metal surface having and at least one crater (page 5, line 1: micro dimple due to shot peening) extending below the mean surface profile and a shoulder at the crater extending above the mean surface profile (Although Pyun is silent on “shoulder”, the shot peening process usually forms a shoulder (also called a “pile-up”) around the rim of each dimple.).
Pyun does not explicitly teach the method comprising:
performing a remanufacturing process to remove at least part of the shoulder to produce a finished remanufactured product having all of the crater, or
performing a remanufacturing process to remove all of the shoulder and a first portion of the crater and stopping the remanufacturing process before the entire crater is removed to produce a finished remanufactured product having a second portion of the crater extending from the mean surface profile.
Yan teaches a method for prolonging the life of a roller bearing ([0006]: extend the service life of the bearing) comprising sandblasting a surface of the bearing and grinding the surface. ([0022])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to grind the metal surface of Pyun after shot peening as taught by Yan in order to achieve a desired surface quality (e.g. roundness and roughness) as suggested in Yan [0022]. During the grinding process, at least a part of the should or all of the shoulder and a part of the crater would be removed.
Regarding Claim 2, Pyun/Yan teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the remanufacturing process comprises grinding. (Yan [0022]: re-grinded)
Regarding Claim 3, Pyun/Yan teach the method according to claim 2, including, determining or estimating a dimension or size of the crater. (Pyun page 5, lines 21-23 & lines 31-33: set according to the size, shape and depth of the microdimple)
Regarding Claim 4, Pyun/Yan teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the product is a bearing raceway (Pyun page 2, “TECH-PROBLEM”: repaired the surface of the raceway wheel).
Regarding Claim 5-9, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove a certain amount of metal surface layer such as more or less than 50 µm thickness or 50% of the crater or all of the shoulder and a portion of the crater or at least part of the shoulder and none of the crater depending on the amount of metal surface required to be removed in order to achieve a desired surface quality (e.g. roundness and roughness) as suggested in Yan [0022].
Regarding Claim 10, Pyun/Yan teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the remanufacturing process comprises grinding. (Yan [0022]: re-grinded)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gon (JP2021025598) teaches a method for repairing track ring of rolling bearing having a metal surface having a mean surface profile and at least one crater (Fig. 3A, depressions in a track surface (4a)) extending below the mean surface profile (Fig. 3A, original track surface (4a) before damage), but it does not teach a shoulder at the crater extending above the mean surface profile.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, SUNIL SINGH can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 9/25/2026
