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 Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, last line “outer ring” should be - -inner ring- -. If the virtual line extends to the outer ring from the shield the line does not truncate the space between the shield and the inner ring which the claim is attempting to define.
Claim 10 should be rephrased to read - -in the axial direction of the rolling bearing, a proportion of the placement surface relative to the total axial length of the first recess part is 50% or more, and a proportion of the first inclined part relative to the total axial length of the first recess part is 30% or more- - so that the relationship and what is being compared is clear and consistent with the disclosure.
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) 1-3, 5-6, 10-11, 13, 14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masur, DE102015201101.
Regarding claim 1, Masur discloses a rolling bearing, comprising: an outer ring (2) and an inner ring (8); a rolling element (12) disposed in a rollable manner between the outer ring and the inner ring; a cage (11) holding the rolling element; and a shield (7), wherein the outer ring (2) includes: a raceway surface (3) supporting the rolling element in a rollable manner; a first recess (A, see annotated figure below) part formed at a first direction side in an axial direction of the rolling bearing with respect to the raceway surface; and a first ridge part (B, from the perspective of the groove bottom this forms a ridge) formed between the first recess part and the raceway surface, and the first recess part includes a placement surface (C) for placing grease (intended use of the recess/surface, all grooves or channels can receive grease) and a first inclined part (D) formed between the placement surface and the first ridge part and approaching an outer peripheral surface of the outer ring toward an outer side in the axial direction of the rolling bearing.
PNG
media_image1.png
468
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Masur discloses that the placement surface (C) includes a flat surface formed substantially parallel to the outer peripheral surface of the outer ring, the first ridge part includes a flat part (E) formed substantially parallel to the outer peripheral surface of the outer ring, and the flat part is formed continuously with the first inclined part in the axial direction (Masur can be viewed as only E defining the ridge part, in this interpretation the surface between E and D in the figure above can be viewed as the first inclined part instead of D alone).
Regarding claim 3, Masur discloses that an end part (F) at a side opposite from the first inclined part of the placement surface is in contact with the shield (7, the claim does not set forth any particular structure for the end part and thus the ridge on the opposite side of the outer ring can read on the claim).
Regarding claim 5, Masur discloses that the placement surface and the first inclined part are not formed with a portion having a distance from the outer peripheral surface of the outer ring increasing toward the outer side in the axial direction (the slopes in Masur of the first inclined part D provides a decreasing distance only).
Regarding claim 6, Masur discloses that the cage holds the rolling element from one side in the axial direction with respect to the raceway surface (this does not limit the cage to any particular structure, all cages hold the rolling elements from at least one side), and an amount of the grease placed at another side in the axial direction is larger than an amount of the grease placed at the one side in the axial direction (because of the recess part A more grease can be placed on one side than the other).
Regarding claim 11, Masur discloses that a maximum angle of the first inclined part with respect to the axial direction of the rolling bearing is from 10 degrees to 80 degrees (the incline of the surface in the region of B in the annotated figure is clearly within this range and this surface can be considered the incline as explained in claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 13, Masur discloses that in a radial direction of the rolling bearing, a proportion of a length of the cage to a distance between the placement surface and an outer peripheral surface of the inner ring is 50% or less (the space between the A,C and 13 of the inner ring defines the space, the end of cage 11 in this region is illustrated as occupying less than 50% of this space).
Regarding claim 14, Masur discloses that a proportion of a length of the first recess part in the axial direction of the rolling bearing to a length of a gap in the axial direction of the rolling bearing between a central part in the axial direction of the outer ring and an end part at the outer side in the axial direction of the first recess part is 40% or more (in the instant application the gap is defined as dimension d, this runs from the center of the rolling element to the shield, viewing Masur in this same way the length of the recess part which includes all the subcomponents in the annotated figure above occupies more than 50% of the space between the center of the rolling element and the shield 7).
Regarding claim 16, it is first noted that the claim does not provide any specific frame of reference for the measurement of the depth of either feature, because of this the reference point can be different for each feature. Masur discloses that a depth in a radial direction of the first recess part (measured from the ridge part) is equal to or less than a depth of the raceway surface in a radial direction of the raceway surface rolling bearing (the depth of the raceway surface defined relative to surface 4a, using 4a as the reference point of the raceway groove depth and the flat part of the ridge part as the reference point for the first recess part the device as illustrated by Masur clearly anticipates the claim).
Regarding claim 17, Masur discloses that the placement surface includes a surface inclined with respect to the outer peripheral surface of the outer ring (the placement surface can be viewed as all of the groove and the first incline can be the incline in region B above as explained in the rejection of claim 2, because of this the sidewalls of the recess A can be viewed as being surfaces of the placement surface).
Regarding claim 18, Masur discloses that the placement surface includes a curved surface (the corners between the bottom of the groove and the sloped sidewalls are curved).
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) 7, 9, 10, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masur, DE102015201101.
Regarding claim 7, Masur does not disclose that a ratio between a volume of the grease placed at the one side in the axial direction and a volume of the grease placed at the other side in the axial direction is 1:9 or more and less than 5:5.
The claim is focused on the volume of a grease placed on each side of the bearing relative to each other, this claim only applies to the initial filling of the bearing since during operation the grease will move throughout the bearing. The initial fill of the bearing and how much grease is supplied or how much is supplied on each side of the bearing does not structurally define the bearing device. Because of this the claim can be treated as defining an optimum fill range by comparing the volume on each side of the ball. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Masur and supply a grease in a manner that results in more grease on one side of the assembly than the other, in a range of 1:9 to less than 5:5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed (structurally the bearing reads on claimed invention) in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Masur does not disclose that a ratio of a volume of the grease to a bearing space is 5% to 60%, the bearing space being obtained by subtracting a volume of the rolling element and a volume of the cage from a volume of a region surrounded by the outer ring and the inner ring, the shield, and virtual lines extending from an inner side in a radial direction of the shield to the outer peripheral surface of the outer ring. In other words, Masur does not disclose that of all the free space in the bearing 5-60% of that is filled with grease.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Masur and fill 5-60% of the free space in the bearing with grease, 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 (optimum amount of grease given operational conditions of the bearing) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, while disclosing a shape that meets the structural requirements, Masur does not disclose that a proportion of the placement surface relative to the total length of the recess part is 50% or more and a proportion of the first inclined part is 30% or more.
This feature can be viewed as a selection of a particular size for the features that make up the shape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the sizes of the features so they occupy 50% or more and 30% or more, respectively, of the overall size of the recess part, 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). Changing the size of these components also influences the total volume of grease/lubricant that can be held in the bearing, changing relative dimensions in order to optimize the volume of a feature is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Masur, while appearing to show an angle for the inclined surface in region B above that is approximately 30%, does not explicitly state that a maximum angle of the first inclined part with respect to the axial direction is from 30 degrees to 60 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to set the angle range to between 30 and 60 degrees for the first inclined part, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, Masur does not disclose that a ratio between a depth of the recess part in a radial direction of the rolling bearing and a length in the axial direction of the first recess part with respect to the first ridge part (measured from the ridge part) is from 1:4 to 1:6.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to set the ratio between a depth of the recess part in a radial direction of the rolling bearing and a length in the axial direction of the first recess part with respect to the first ridge part to between 1:4 to 1:6, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. While defining a ratio the claim is ultimately defining sizes of the features relative to each other and thus would also have been obvious 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).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masur, DE102015201101, in view of Mola, EP2743527.
Regarding claim 8, Masur does not disclose that a size and shape of the first recess part formed at the first direction side in the axial direction with respect to the raceway surface is substantially the same as a size and shape of a second recess part formed at a second direction side in the axial direction with respect to the raceway surface.
Mola teaches that a rolling element bearing can be provided with identically sized and shaped recesses (23) on both sides of the rolling element.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Masur and add a second recess of identical size and shape to the first recess on the opposite side of the bearing, as taught by Mola, for the predictable result increasing the storage capacity of the bearing. Increasing the storage capacity providing the additional predictable result of holding more lubricant and thus extending the service life of the bearing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious a second incline that is located between the placement surface and the shield that is angled in a manner that decreases the distance from the outer peripheral surface of the outer ring as defined by the claim.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks Applicant argues that the rejections under 35 USC 112 have been overcome. While this is true, in doing so Applicant has removed the requirement of the recess and thus the features around the recess being “formed at both direction sides” of the bearing, this significantly broadens the claim necessitating the new grounds of rejection above. The original claim language required both sides of the bearing to have the recess and the corresponding features, this is no longer the case and thus any bearing with a single recess part on just one side of the bearing could be applicable to the claim.
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