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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 July 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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the scope as “a bearing unit”. Claim 1 further recites “centering structure for axially centering the axial duct of the bearing unit with another axial duct of another bearing unit”. The structure it outside the scope of the claims since it relies upon the structure of “another bearing unit”. It is improper to define the structure of the invention based on elements outside the scope of the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed any structure that provides a “centering” or “aligning” function meets the limitation of the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baracca U.S. 2022/0018389 in view of Masuda JP H08-30494 and Tako JP 2011-106493.
Re clm 1, Baracca discloses a bearing unit (Fig. 1) for multiwire machines ([0022]), the bearing unit having a central axis of rotation, and comprising: a stationary inner ring (33), which is delimited axially by respective annular surfaces that are transverse to the central axis of rotation and is further delimited, radially internally, by a cylindrical surface (inner bore of 33) which is coaxial with the central axis of rotation and, radially externally, by an outer raceway (surface on which ball 32 rolls, Fig. 3); a flanged rotatable outer ring (31), of axial dimensions smaller than an axial dimension of the inner ring (shown in Fig. 1 and 3) and defining with said inner ring a cylindrical cavity (bearing space formed between inner ring 33 and outer ring 31); and a plurality of rolling elements (balls 32) arranged inside the cavity and interposed between the inner ring and the outer ring so as to allow relative rotation thereof about the central axis of rotation.
Baracca does not disclose a hydraulic network for distributing the lubricating grease for lubricating the cavity and comprising at least one axial duct passing through the inner ring parallel to the central axis of rotation, and a radial duct formed in the inner ring between the axial duct and the outer raceway.
Masuda teaches a bearing comprising a hydraulic network for distributing the lubricating grease for lubricating the cavity and comprising at least one axial duct (2d, Fig. 2) passing through the inner ring parallel to the central axis of rotation, and a radial duct (2c) formed in the inner ring between the axial duct and the outer raceway for the purpose of improving the lubrication to prevent seizure of the bearing and extend the bearing life (bottom of page 4 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Baracca and provide a hydraulic network for distributing the lubricating grease for lubricating the cavity and comprising at least one axial duct passing through the inner ring parallel to the central axis of rotation, and a related radial duct formed in the inner ring between the axial duct and the outer raceway for the purpose of improving the lubrication to prevent seizure of the bearing and extend the bearing life.
Baracca does not disclose centering structure for coaxially aligning the axial duct of the bearing unit.
Tako teaches a centering structure (12, Fig. 2) for aligning ducts of bearing elements for the purpose of matching the circumferential positions of lubricant holes in adjacent elements ([0024] and [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Baracca and provide a centering structure for coaxially aligning the axial duct of the bearing unit for the purpose of matching the circumferential positions of lubricant holes in adjacent elements.
The centering structure of Tako is at least capable of coaxially aligning the axial duct of the bearing unit with another axial duct of another bearing unit.
Re clm 2, the improvement of Masuda further discloses the axial duct is formed between the two surfaces so as to connect two axially opposite sides of the bearing unit to one another (as shown in Fig. 1) and is formed between the outer raceway and the cylindrical surface in a position that is radially closer to the cylindrical surface than to the outer raceway.
Re clm 3, Baracca further discloses the outer raceway comprises a circumferential groove (50) which splits the outer raceway into two annular portions that mirror one another about a plane of symmetry of the rolling elements perpendicular to the central axis of rotation (shown in Fig. 3), and the groove configured to contain lubricating grease for keeping the outer raceway lubricated.
Baracca in view of Masuda would further provide the radial duct opening into the groove through a bottom of said groove to permit lubricating grease from the hydraulic network to flow into the groove.
Re clm 4, the improvement of Masuda does not disclose the hydraulic network for distributing the lubricating grease comprises up to eight axial ducts, and one radial duct for each axial duct.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Baracca in view of Masuda and provide up to eight axial ducts, and one radial duct for each axial duct, since it held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Re clm 9, Baracca further discloses the outer ring has a support flange (shown in Fig. 2) which extends radially outward from said outer ring in a direction transverse to the central axis of rotation.
Re clm 10, Baracca in view of Masuda does not disclose the axial ducts are uniformly distributed around the central axis of rotation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baracca in view of Masuda and provide the axial ducts are uniformly distributed around the central axis of rotation, since it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re clm 11, Baracca in view of Masuda does not disclose the hydraulic network for distributing the lubricating grease comprises eight axial ducts arranged at 45° from one another about the central axis of rotation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baracca in view of Masuda and provide the eight axial ducts arranged at 45° from one another about the central axis of rotation, since it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 2-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baracca U.S. 2022/0018389 in view of Masuda JP H08-30494 and Tako JP 2011-106493 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oura JP H06-213238.
Baracca in view of Masuda and Tako discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Assuming Masuda does not disclose the axial duct is in a position that is radially closer to the cylindrical surface than the outer raceway:
Re clm 2, the improvement of Masuda further discloses the axial duct is formed between the two surfaces so as to connect two axially opposite sides of the bearing unit to one another (as shown in Fig. 1) and between the outer raceway and the cylindrical surface.
Masuda does not disclose the axial duct is in a position that is radially closer to the cylindrical surface than to the outer raceway.
Oura teaches an axial duct (19, Fig. 6) in a position that is radially closer to the cylindrical surface than to the outer raceway for the purpose of reducing the stress in the ring such that it is less susceptible to damage (top of page 7 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Baracca in view of Masuda and provide the axial duct is in a position that is radially closer to the cylindrical surface than to the outer raceway for the purpose of reducing the stress in the ring such that it is less susceptible to damage.
Re clm 3, Baracca further discloses the outer raceway comprises a circumferential groove (50) which splits the outer raceway into two annular portions that mirror one another about a plane of symmetry of the rolling elements perpendicular to the central axis of rotation (shown in Fig. 3), and the groove configured to contain lubricating grease for keeping the outer raceway lubricated.
Baracca in view of Masuda would further provide the radial duct opening into the groove through a bottom of said groove to permit lubricating grease from the hydraulic network to flow into the groove.
Re clm 4, the improvement of Masuda does not disclose the hydraulic network for distributing the lubricating grease comprises up to eight axial ducts, and one radial duct for each axial duct.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Baracca in view of Masuda and provide up to eight axial ducts, and one radial duct for each axial duct, since it held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Re clm 9, Baracca further discloses the outer ring has a support flange (shown in Fig. 2) which extends radially outward from said outer ring in a direction transverse to the central axis of rotation.
The limitation the “support flange is connected to a respective pulley of the multiwire machine” is considered intended use of the flange and the pulley and multiwire machine are outside the scope of the “the bearing unit”. The support flange is capable of attaching to a pulley of a multiwire machine.
Re clm 10, Baracca in view of Masuda does not disclose the axial ducts are uniformly distributed around the central axis of rotation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baracca in view of Masuda and provide the axial ducts are uniformly distributed around the central axis of rotation, since it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re clm 11, Baracca in view of Masuda does not disclose the hydraulic network for distributing the lubricating grease comprises eight axial ducts arranged at 45° from one another about the central axis of rotation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baracca in view of Masuda and provide the eight axial ducts arranged at 45° from one another about the central axis of rotation, since it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 12 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
112 Rejection
Applicant argues that it is permissible and definite for a limitation in a claim to be based on a feature outside the scope of the claim by citing Orthokinetics Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While it is true that the cited case has a claim limitation that references parts “dimensioned as to be insertable through the space between the doorframe of an automobile”, the case is distinctly different from the instant application. The dimension cited in the referenced case is a definite and clear feature of the device. Furthermore, the doorframe which provides the size of the dimension does not directly interface with the device. Rather, the automobile doorframe merely provides some finite bound on the size of the device. Still further, doorframes for vehicles have some intrinsic limitations since people must be able to traverse the doorway.
To the contrary, Applicant’s device requires direct interfacing between two bearings (one claimed and one unclaimed). Furthermore, bearings have no size limitations as they can be as small as a couple of millimeters to as large as several meters. Still further, the “another bearing unit” must also have some sort of corresponding structure to mate with the “centering structure” of the claimed bearing. As can be appreciated, the limitations of the cited case are vastly different from that of instant application, and as such a direct comparison between the cited case and the instant application cannot be made. Furthermore, Applicant is attempting to define the centering structure by how it interfaces with “another bearing unit”. No structural details of the “another bearing unit” are claimed or defined. As such, how is it possible to argue that the limitation is definite if the centering structure is based on how it interfaces with an undefined “another bearing structure”? As such, those of ordinary skill in the art would not easily be able to obtain what limitations are provided by that claim. For example, does a bearing with any protrusion or recess in an axial face provide the requisite “aligning the axial duct of the bearing unit with another bearing unit”? Could the axial duct itself be considered “centering structure” since a projection from another bearing could be inserted therein?
103 Rejection
Although Baracca and Masuda are still used to reject the claims, Liu has been replaced with Tako. While the examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that Liu’s pins are used in a “materially different” way than the claims since pins are well known as locating and aligning elements between parts, the examiner has provided Tako for the purpose of compact prosecution. Tako explicitly discloses a projection of a bearing which engages a recess of another element for the purpose of aligning lubrication holes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN B WAITS whose telephone number is (571)270-3664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6-4 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 R 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.
/ALAN B WAITS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights