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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/27/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 12/10/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 5-6, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (JP 2015086940 A) in view of Asao (US 20020137639 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses (in annotated fig. 1) a rolling bearing (10) comprising:
an inner ring (30) and an outer ring (20) disposed coaxially with each other;
a rolling body (15) disposed between the inner ring (30) and the outer ring (20);
a sealing member (50, 55) mounted on the inner ring or the outer ring (20) and covering a space between the inner ring (30) and the outer ring (20) from an outer side in an axial direction;
and grease (G1) disposed between the rolling body (15) and the sealing member (50),
wherein one bearing ring of the inner ring and the outer ring (20) has a circumferential surface (CS) facing the other bearing ring (30),
the circumferential surface (CS) is formed with a raceway surface (22) that supports the rolling body (15) in a rollable manner,
and a recessed portion (RP) that is provided at a location extending in the axial direction from an end edge of the raceway surface (22) in the axial direction and is recessed in a radial direction,
the grease (G1) is in contact with the recessed portion (RP).
Zhang does not disclose a thickener of the grease comprises alicyclic urea or aliphatic urea.
Asao teaches a thickener of the grease comprises alicyclic urea or aliphatic urea (para. [0016]) for the purpose of maintaining excellent heat resistance and having excellent shear stability (para. [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickener be alicyclic urea, as taught by Asao, in the rolling bearing of Zhang for the purpose of maintaining excellent heat resistance and having excellent shear stability (para. [0017]).
While Zhang in view of Asao does not explicitly teach the unworked penetration of the grease is greater than 178 and less than 287, and the unworked penetration of the grease after standing at 85°C for 18 hours is greater than 158, Zhang in view of Asao teaches the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
PNG
media_image1.png
566
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Asao teaches (in Zhang annotated fig. 1) the rolling bearing according to claim 1, wherein the grease (G1) is in contact with a ridge portion (RD) formed at an end edge of the recessed portion (RP) on a raceway surface side.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Asao teaches (in Zhang annotated fig. 1) the rolling bearing according to claim 1, wherein the one bearing ring (20) has a protruding portion (PP) that protrudes toward the other bearing ring side (30) and on which a circumferential surface (CS) is formed, the protruding portion (PP) has an end surface (ES) that faces outward in the axial direction and is connected (via seal 50) to a circumferential edge on the other bearing ring side (30), the circumferential surface (CS) has a connection surface (CON) formed between the recessed portion (RP) and the end surface (ES), and the connection surface (CON) is further away from the other bearing ring (30) in the radial direction than the end edge of the raceway surface (22) in the axial direction.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of Asao teaches the rolling bearing according to claim 1, wherein a difference between worked penetration and the unworked penetration of the grease is less than 50.
While Zhang in view of Asao does not explicitly teach a difference between worked penetration and the unworked penetration of the grease is less than 50, Zhang in view of Asao teaches the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of Asao teaches the rolling bearing according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of a difference between worked penetration and the unworked penetration to the worked penetration of the grease is less than 22.7%.
While Zhang in view of Asao does not explicitly teach a ratio of a difference between worked penetration and the unworked penetration to the worked penetration of the grease is less than 22.7%, Zhang in view of Asao teaches the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Alternative rejection #1
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mamoru (JP 2002174253 A) in view of Asao (US 20020137639 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mamoru discloses a rolling bearing (in annotated fig. 4 and figs. 1-5) comprising:
an inner ring (2) and an outer ring (1) disposed coaxially with each other;
a rolling body (3) disposed between the inner ring (2) and the outer ring (1);
a sealing member (5) mounted on the inner ring or the outer ring (1) and covering a space (S) between the inner ring (2) and the outer ring (1) from an outer side in an axial direction;
and grease (G) disposed between the rolling body (1) and the sealing member (5),
wherein one bearing ring of the inner ring and the outer ring (1) has a circumferential surface (7 and 1a) facing the other bearing ring (2),
the circumferential surface (7 and 1a) is formed with a raceway surface (1a) that supports the rolling body (3) in a rollable manner,
and a recessed portion (T) that is provided at a location extending in the axial direction from an end edge of the raceway surface (1a) in the axial direction and is recessed in a radial direction,
the grease (G) is in contact with the recessed portion (T).
Mamoru does not disclose a thickener of the grease comprises alicyclic urea or aliphatic urea.
Asao teaches a thickener of the grease comprises alicyclic urea or aliphatic urea (para. [0016]) for the purpose of maintaining excellent heat resistance and having excellent shear stability (para. [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickener be alicyclic urea, as taught by Asao, in the rolling bearing of Mamoru for the purpose of maintaining excellent heat resistance and having excellent shear stability (para. [0017]).
While Mamoru in view of Asao does not explicitly teach the unworked penetration of the grease is greater than 178 and less than 287, and the unworked penetration of the grease after standing at 85 °C for 18 hours is greater than 158, Zhang in view of Asao teaches the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
PNG
media_image2.png
366
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Mamoru in view of Asao teaches (in Mamoru annotated fig. 4) the rolling bearing according to claim 1, wherein the grease (G) is in contact with a location (LC1) of the recessed portion (T) that faces a direction inclined outward in the axial direction with respect to the radial direction.
Regarding claim 3, Mamoru in view of Asao teaches (in Mamoru annotated fig. 4) the rolling bearing according to claim 1, wherein the recessed portion (T) has a location (LC2) that faces a direction inclined inward in the axial direction with respect to the radial direction.
Regarding claim 4, Mamoru in view of Asao teaches (in Mamoru fig. 1-2 and 5) the rolling bearing according to claim 1, wherein the grease (G) is in contact with the sealing member (5).
Regarding claim 5, Mamoru in view of Asao teaches (in Mamoru annotated fig. 4) teaches the grease (G) is in contact with a ridge portion (RD) formed at an end edge of the recessed portion (T) on a raceway surface side.
Regarding claim 9, Mamoru in view of Asao teaches the rolling bearing according to claim 1, wherein a difference between worked penetration and the unworked penetration of the grease is less than 50.
While Mamoru in view of Asao does not explicitly teach a difference between worked penetration and the unworked penetration of the grease is less than 50, Mamoru in view of Asao teaches the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 10, Mamoru in view of Asao teaches the rolling bearing according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of a difference between worked penetration and the unworked penetration to the worked penetration of the grease is less than 22.7%.
While Mamoru in view of Asao does not explicitly teach a ratio of a difference between worked penetration and the unworked penetration to the worked penetration of the grease is less than 22.7%, Mamoru in view of Asao teaches the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 12, Mamoru in view of Asao teaches a rotating device (in Mamoru para. [0001] discloses various rotational devices that includes ball bearing) comprising: a rotating body (rotational support parts) disposed to be rotatable; a support body ((not shown, but it is the body of the various rotational devices) rotatably supporting the rotating body; and the rolling bearing (1) according to claim 1 interposed between the rotating body and the support body (para. [0001]).
Alternative rejection #2
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (JP 7209902 B1; US 20240318691 A1 as English equivalent) in view of Asao (US 20020137639 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto discloses (in annotated fig. 2 and fig. 5) a rolling bearing (1) comprising:
an inner ring (3) and an outer ring (2) disposed coaxially with each other;
a rolling body (1) disposed between the inner ring (3) and the outer ring (2);
a sealing member (26, 27) mounted on the inner ring or the outer ring (2) and covering a space (S) between the inner ring (3) and the outer ring (2) from an outer side in an axial direction;
and grease (G1, G2) disposed between the rolling body (4) and the sealing member (26, 27),
wherein one bearing ring of the inner ring and the outer ring (2) has a circumferential surface (51, 52, 61, 21) facing the other bearing ring (3),
the circumferential surface (51, 52, 61, 21) is formed with a raceway surface (21) that supports the rolling body (4) in a rollable manner,
and a recessed portion (52) that is provided at a location extending in the axial direction from an end edge of the raceway surface (21) in the axial direction and is recessed in a radial direction,
the grease (G1) is in contact with the recessed portion (52).
Matsumoto does not disclose a thickener of the grease comprises alicyclic urea or aliphatic urea.
Asao teaches a thickener of the grease comprises alicyclic urea or aliphatic urea (para. [0016]) for the purpose of maintaining excellent heat resistance and having excellent shear stability (para. [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickener be alicyclic urea, as taught by Asao, in the rolling bearing of Matsumoto for the purpose of maintaining excellent heat resistance and having excellent shear stability (para. [0017]).
While Matsumoto in view of Asao does not explicitly teach the unworked penetration of the grease is greater than 178 and less than 287, and the unworked penetration of the grease after standing at 85 °C for 18 hours is greater than 158, Matsumoto in view of Asao teaches the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
PNG
media_image3.png
587
780
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto in view of Asao teaches (in Matsumoto annotated fig. 5) the rolling bearing according to claim 1, wherein the grease (G1) is in contact with the sealing member (27).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto in view of Asao teaches (in Matsumoto annotated fig. 1) the rolling bearing according to claim 1, wherein the one bearing ring (2) has a protruding portion (PP) that protrudes toward the other bearing ring side (3) and on which a circumferential surface (51, 52, 61, 21) is formed, the protruding portion (PP) has an end surface (ES) that faces outward in the axial direction and is connected (via seal 27) to a circumferential edge on the other bearing ring side (3), the circumferential surface (51, 52, 61, 21) has a connection surface (CS) formed between the recessed portion (52) and the end surface (ES), and the connection surface (CS) is further away from the other bearing ring (3) in the radial direction than the end edge of the raceway surface (21) in the axial direction.
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto in view of Asao teaches (in Matsumoto annotated fig. 5) the rolling bearing according to claim 1, wherein the circumferential surface (51, 52, 61, 21) includes an inclined portion (51) extending from an end edge (EE) of the recessed portion (52) toward the raceway surface side (21) while being inclined with respect to the radial direction and the axial direction.
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto in view of Asao teaches the rolling bearing according to claim 7, wherein the grease (G1) is disposed so as not to protrude from an inner side of the recessed portion (52) toward the inclined portion (51) side in the radial direction (the grease is not going toward the inclined portion side and is within the recessed portion).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto in view of teaches the rolling bearing according to claim 1, wherein a difference between worked penetration and the unworked penetration of the grease is less than 50.
While Mamoru in view of Asao does not explicitly teach a difference between worked penetration and the unworked penetration of the grease is less than 50, Mamoru in view of Asao teaches the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumoto in view of Asao teaches the rolling bearing according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of a difference between worked penetration and the unworked penetration to the worked penetration of the grease is less than 22.7%.
While Matsumoto in view of Asao does not explicitly teach a ratio of a difference between worked penetration and the unworked penetration to the worked penetration of the grease is less than 22.7%, Mamoru in view of Asao teaches the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 12, Matsumoto in view of Asao teaches (in Matsumoto fig. 3) a rotating device (para. [0003] motor) comprising: a rotating body (99) disposed to be rotatable; a support body (not shown, but is the body of the motor) rotatably supporting the rotating body (99); and the rolling bearing according to claim 1 interposed between the rotating body (99) and the support body (para. [0019]).
Response to Arguments
With regards to the objections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
Applicant’s amendment, see pages 6-7, filed 01/28/2026, have been fully considered. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Applicant amendment of having the thickener of the grease comprising of alicyclic urea or aliphatic urea overcomes the previous rejection. Although Tanaka is not being used anymore, Applicant’s argument on Tanaka teaching away from using urea greases is not persuasive because para. [0003] is not saying urea cannot be used. Tanaka is only disclosing that great care is required when using urea greases. Teaching away is specifically when something cannot be used; saying something is known and that great care is required for something to be used does not mean it is teaching away.
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 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