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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-33 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.
The term “rigid” in claims 1, 3-5, 10-12, and 28-33 a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rigid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What degree of flexibility is allowed before a part is no longer considered “rigid”?
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 1-3, 7-8, 10, 17, 19, 21-22, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ince (US 20210262523 A1) in view of Brock (US 8888375 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Ince discloses (in figs. 1-4) an annular cage (32) for retaining rolling bodies in a rolling bearing (20),
the cage (32) configured to be in use mounted interposed between respective inner (22) and outer rings (26) of the rolling bearing (20) and comprising a plurality of radially passing-through seats or pockets (111) arranged with respect to each other in a row and each configured to accommodate the respective rolling body (34),
said plurality of radially passing-through seats or pockets (111) being bounded, each, by a respective curved surface having a center lying in a radial median plane of the cage (32) coincident in use with a corresponding radial median plane of the rolling bearing (20);
said annular cage (32) comprising: a first and a second half-cage (36, 38) axially opposite to each other,
said half-cage (36, 38 and para. [0019] says they are identical) being connected to each other and each presenting an annular body and at least partially curved plurality of cavities (46) obtained on respective opposite first frontal faces (54) of the annular body of each half-cage (36, 38) facing each other,
said at least partially curved cavities (46) of the first half-cage (36) facing axially corresponding at least partially curved cavities (46) of the second half-cage (38), so as to define with them said seats or pockets (111);
and mechanical connecting elements (52, 70) to rigidly connect to each other the first and second half-cages (36, 38) to form said annular cage (32), the mechanical connecting elements (52) comprising:
a plurality of respective male elements (52) integrally formed with carried by the first half-cage (36) and configured, each, as a rigid block (52) projecting axially from said first frontal face (54) of the annular body of the first half-cage (36);
a plurality of corresponding recesses (90, 98) formed in the annular body of the second half- cage (38) on the side of said first frontal face (54) of the same,
each recess (90) being arranged opposite to a said male element (52) and configured to mate in integral manner with a corresponding rigid block (52) constituting the male element (6, NOTE: BRI on integral does not require one piece, in the assembled products, all parts are integrated into one piece).
Ince does not disclose the first and second annular metal inserts, the first annular metal insert having been overmolded with the first half-cage so as to be completely embedded within the annular body of the first half-cage; and the second annular metal insert having been overmolded with the second half-cage so as to be completely embedded within the annular body of the second half-cage, the first and second annular metal inserts each being bounded between an anterior frontal wall facing the corresponding first frontal face of each half-cage and a posterior frontal wall, opposite to the anterior frontal wall, both of the walls arranged perpendicularly to an axis of symmetry of the cage, so that the first and second annular metal inserts are shaped substantially as washer.
Brock teaches (in annotated fig. 3) the first annular metal insert (6) having been overmolded with the first half-cage (10) so as to be completely embedded within the annular body of the first half-cage (10); and the second annular metal insert (7) having been overmolded with the second half-cage (20) so as to be completely embedded within the annular body (1) of the second half-cage (20, abstract), the first and second annular metal inserts (6, 7) each being bounded between an anterior frontal wall (AFW) facing the corresponding first frontal face (FF1) of each half-cage (10, 20) and a posterior frontal wall (PFW), opposite to the anterior frontal wall (AFW), both walls (AFW, PFW) arranged perpendicularly to an axis of symmetry of the cage (1), so that the first and second annular metal inserts (6, 7) are shaped substantially as washers for the purpose of having advantages of weight, limitation of particulate generation and pliability relative to steel cages (col. 1, lines 65-67).
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 first and second annular metal insert overmolded with the cage, as taught by Brock, in the cage of Ince for the purpose of having advantages of weight, limitation of particulate generation and pliability relative to steel cages (col. 1, lines 65-67). Furthermore, adding a metal insert provides the predictable result of increasing the rigidity of the cage to reduce deformation and flexing during use.
PNG
media_image1.png
533
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ince in view of Brock teaches (in Ince fig. 2A) the annular cage according to claim 1, wherein the first and second half-cages (36, 38) are constrained to each other by means of circumferential and radial couplings (70, 64) that are independent of each other and arranged axially in series.
Regarding claim 3, Ince in view of Brock teaches (in Ince fig. 2A) the annular cage according to claim 1, wherein said rigid blocks (52) project axially from respective axial lugs (48) of the annular body of the first half-cage (36) formed on the first frontal face (54) thereof; and in that said recesses (90) are formed within corresponding axial lugs (50) of the second half-cage (38) formed on the first frontal face (54) thereof; the axial lugs (48, 50) of the first and second half-cages (36, 38) delimiting on opposite sides the seats or pockets (111) for the rolling bodies (34) and being frontally coupled head to head to each other, so that said rigid blocks (52) are inserted into the corresponding said recesses (90).
Regarding claim 7, Ince in view of Brock teaches (in Brock annotated fig. 3 and Ince fig. 2B) the annular cage according to claim 1, wherein said first and second annular metal inserts (Brock 6, 7) are configured to be rigidly coupled (via pin holes 80 with pins 100 in Ince fig. 2B) in the axial direction to each other.
Regarding claim 8, Ince in view of Brock teaches (in Brock annotated fig. 3) the annular cage according to claim 1, wherein said first and second annular metal inserts (6, 7) are mirror symmetrical in an axial direction and each comprise a plurality of substantially flat and straight first circumferential stretches (24, 25) arranged in a row and a plurality of curved second circumferential stretches (26, 27) arranged alternately with the first circumferential stretches (24, 25), so that each second stretch (26, 27) is interposed between a pair of adjacent first stretches (24, 25) and vice versa; the second stretches (26, 27) projecting axially from the first stretches (24, 25) and being configured so as to reproduce a circumferential profile of said curved surfaces (CS) delimiting said seats or pockets (PK) for the rolling bodies and being arranged parallel and adjacent to said curved surfaces (CS), so as to constitute circumferential hoop elements of the seats or pockets (PK) for the rolling bodies; said first and second annular metal inserts (6, 7) being connected to each other at all said first circumferential stretches (24, 25).
Regarding claim 10, Ince in view of Brock teaches (in Ince fig. 1 and fig. 2A) the annular cage according to claim 2, wherein said rigid blocks (52) project axially from respective axial lugs (48) of the annular body of the first half-cage (56) formed on the first frontal face (54) thereof; and in that said recesses (90) are formed within corresponding axial lugs (50) of the second half-cage (38) formed on the first frontal face (54) thereof; the axial lugs (48, 50) of the first and second half-cages (36, 38) delimiting on opposite sides the seats or pockets (111) for the rolling bodies (34) and being frontally coupled head to head to each other, so that said rigid blocks (52) are inserted into the corresponding said recesses (90).
Regarding claim 17, Ince in view of Brock teaches a rolling bearing (in Ince fig. 1) comprising: an outer ring (26); an inner ring (22); a plurality of rolling bodies (34) interposed between the inner (22) and outer rings (26) to make them relatively rotatable with respect to each other with low friction; and an annular cage (32) for retaining the rolling bodies (34) according to claim 1, the cage (32) being mounted interposed between the inner (22) and outer rings (26).
Regarding claim 19, Ince in view of Brock teaches (in Ince fig. 2A and 2B) the annular cage according to claim 3, wherein said recesses (90) are axial through-recesses (90).
Regarding claim 21, Ince in view of Brock teaches (in Brock annotated fig. 3 and Ince fig. 2B) the annular cage according to claim 7, further comprising rivets (Ince 100 with 90) rigidly coupling in the axial direction said first and second annular metal inserts (Brock 6, 7) to each other.
Regarding claim 22, Ince in view of Brock teaches (in Ince fig. 2A and 2B) the annular cage according to claim 10, wherein said recesses (90) are axial through-recesses.
Regarding claim 25, Ince in view of Brock teaches (in Ince fig. 2A and 2B) the annular cage according to claim 1, wherein each male element (52) and corresponding recess (90) form a circumferential coupling and a radial coupling (70, 64).
Regarding claim 26, Ince in view of Brock teaches (in Ince fig. 2A and 2B) the annular cage according to claim 1, wherein each male element (52) and corresponding recess (90) form a first snap-coupling.
Regarding claim 27, Ince in view of Brock teaches (in Ince fig. 2A and 2B) the annular cage according to claim 26, wherein each male element (70 part of 52) and corresponding recess (wing slot 98 part of 90) form a second snap-coupling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 9, 11-16, 18, 20, and 23-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 28-33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the combination set forth in claims 4, 9, and 11, 28, and 33.
In particular, for claims 4, 11, and 28, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the annular cage wherein each said rigid block is provided with first fastening elements consisting of a sequence of radial reliefs or grooves formed on opposite first lateral faces of the rigid block in a radial direction; and in that said recesses are provided on opposite first lateral faces thereof, facing the first lateral faces of a respective rigid block, with a sequence of radial reliefs or grooves arranged axially in sequence, said radial reliefs or grooves of the recesses being configured to snap-couple with corresponding radial grooves or reliefs of a corresponding rigid block in combination with other claim limitations.
In particular, for claims 9 and 33, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the annular cage wherein said annular body of each of said first and second half-cages has a second frontal face, opposite to the first face, which is defined by a plurality of radial ribs configured as lattice elements to impart greater radial stiffness to each of the first and second half-cages; and in that at least said recesses of the second half-cage are flanked, each, by a respective radially outer axial groove and a corresponding radially inner axial groove formed in the annular body, so that each said recess is bounded at said axial grooves, by elastically flexible walls in combination the other claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the claim objections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, applicant amendments have mostly overcome the previously raised issue. Applicant has addressed the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection by removing “substantially.” However upon further review, while the removal of the term “substantially” is helpful, some of the issues still remains with the term “rigid” as it is still relative and the specification does not provide any standard for ascertaining what the metes and bounds of rigid are.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-15, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
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
Prosecution Insights