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
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, “a respective rolling body” should be changed to --the respective rolling body-- as it is a double inclusion previously recited in claim 1, line 1.
In claim 1, lines 9-10, “a plurality of cavities at least partially curved” should be changed to –at least partially curved plurality of cavities-- to make sense grammatically.
In claim 1, line 29, “both walls” should be changed to –both of the walls-- as it is a double inclusion previously recited in claim 1, lines 27-28.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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 “substantially rigid” in claims 1, 3-5, and 10-12 a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially 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 aloud before a part is no longer considered “substantially rigid”?
Regarding claims 3, 6-7, 10, and 13-14, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claims 9 and 16, the term “bordered” is unclear as the second frontal face has the structure and it is not “bordered” by anything.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 7-8, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brock (US 8888375 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Brock discloses (in annotated fig. 3 and figs. 1-5) an annular cage (1) for retaining rolling bodies in a rolling bearing,
the cage (1) configured to be in use mounted interposed between respective inner and outer rings (not shown but disclosed in claim 6) of the rolling bearing and comprising a plurality of radially passing-through seats or pockets (PK) arranged with respect to each other in a row and each configured to accommodate a respective rolling body (col. 2 lines 60-61 discloses “In the embodiment shown, rolling element pocket 30 is a circular shape, such as for a ball”),
said plurality of radially passing-through seats or pockets (PK) being bounded, each, by a respective curved surface having a center lying in a radial median plane of the cage (1) coincident in use with a corresponding radial median plane of the rolling bearing;
said annular cage (1) comprising: a first (10) and a second half-cage (20) axially opposite to each other,
said half-cages (10, 20) being connected to each other and each presenting an annular body and a plurality of cavities at least partially curved (CV1, CV2) obtained on respective opposite first frontal faces (FF1, FF2) of the annular body of each half-cage (10, 20) facing each other, said at least partially curved cavities (CV1) of the first half-cage (10) facing axially corresponding at least partially curved cavities (CV2) of the second half-cage (20), so as to define with them said seats or pockets (PK);
and mechanical connecting elements (3) to rigidly connect to each other the first and second half-cages (10, 20) to form said annular cage (1),
the mechanical connecting elements (3) comprising:
a plurality of respective male elements (3) carried by the first half-cage (10) and configured, each, as a substantially rigid block (3) projecting axially from said first frontal face (FF1) of the annular body of the first half-cage (10);
a plurality of corresponding recesses (4’) formed in the annular body of the second half-cage (20) on the side of said first frontal face (FF2) of the same,
each recess (4’) being arranged opposite to a said male element (3) and configured to mate in integral manner with a corresponding substantially rigid block (3) constituting the male element (3); and first and second annular metal inserts (6, 7),
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 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
533
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Brock discloses the annular cage according to claim 1, wherein the first and second half-cages (10, 20) are constrained to each other by means of circumferential and radial couplings (3) that are independent of each other and arranged axially in series.
Regarding claim 3, Brock discloses (in fig. 3) the annular cage (1) according to claim 1, wherein said substantially rigid blocks (3) project axially from respective axial lugs (LG1) of the annular body of the first half-cage (10) formed on the first frontal face (FF1) thereof; and in that said recesses (4’) are preferably axial through-recesses and are formed within corresponding axial lugs (LG2) of the second half-cage (20) formed on the first frontal face (FF2) thereof; the axial lugs (LG1, LG2) of the first and second half-cages (10, 20) delimiting on opposite sides the seats or pockets (PK) for the rolling bodies and being frontally coupled head to head to each other, so that said substantially rigid blocks (3) are inserted into the corresponding said recesses (4’).
Regarding claim 7, Brock discloses the annular cage according to claim 1, wherein said first and second annular metal inserts (6, 7) are configured to be rigidly coupled in the axial direction to each other, preferably by rivets (3).
Regarding claim 8, Brock discloses (in 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, Brock discloses the annular cage according to claim 2, wherein said substantially rigid blocks (3) project axially from respective axial lugs (LG1) of the annular body of the first half-cage (10) formed on the first frontal face (FF1) thereof; and in that said recesses (4’) are preferably axial through-recesses and are formed within corresponding axial lugs (LG2) of the second half-cage (20) formed on the first frontal face (FF1) thereof; the axial lugs (LG1, LG2) of the first and second half-cages (10, 20) delimiting on opposite sides the seats or pockets (PK) for the rolling bodies and being frontally coupled head to head to each other, so that said substantially rigid blocks (3) are inserted into the corresponding said recesses (4’).
Regarding claim 17, Brock discloses a rolling bearing comprising: an outer ring; an inner ring; a plurality of rolling bodies interposed between the inner and outer rings to make them relatively rotatable with respect to each other with low friction; and an annular cage (1) for retaining the rolling bodies according to claim 1, the cage (1) being mounted interposed between the inner and outer rings (not shown but disclosed in claim 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 9, 11-16 and 18 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.
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.
In particular, for claims 4 and 11, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the annular cage wherein each said substantially 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 substantially 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 substantially 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 substantially rigid block in combination with other claim limitations.
In particular, for claim 9, 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 is bordered by 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mocnik (US 11199225 B2) discloses a bearing cage that has different material for the pins.
Yamada (US 20090220181 A1) discloses a resin cage with reinforcing material embedded in the cage.
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