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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the handwritten reference characters in Figure 3 should be typed characters to match the rest of the figures and to ensure that are characters are clearly legible. Also in figure 3 “18” on the right side of the figure should be - -18-1- - to be consistent with the figure and the disclosure which does not use “18” as a standalone reference character.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first radius and the first radius being variable (clm 1), the first radius being greater than the second radius (clm 11), the structural configuration of the recess that results in a center axis of the second radius being inclined relative the axis of the third radius (clm 12) and the first ring having the bend (clm 14, see rejection of clm 14 below for additional explanation) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The invention is focused on the first radius which is somewhere between ra and ri but this radius has not been indicated in the drawings and there is no figure providing any detailed geometry of this region, if the invention is within this geometry the geometry must be clearly shown.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “sheet metal” in claim 13 needs antecedent basis in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 needs to end with a period.
Claim 16, line 3, “an a” should be - -a- -.
Claim 16, line 14 “y s” should be - -y is- -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is requiring the first radius, which is between ra and ri according to claim 1, to have a greater curvature than the second radius which corresponds to ra. While this is not illustrated as noted above this feature is also not disclosed in the original written description. Specifically the original disclosure in paragraph 0061 discloses using two stamping tools to make ra and ri, there is no other disclosure regarding how a radius between these two ends would have a greater radius of curvature as a stamping tool that is punching out the radius would either be tapered creating a wider ra or the head of the tool would be the widest point creating a constant radius in the region where the tool passes. How is the first radius being made greater than ra? How is it possible of the first radius to be greater than ra using the process described in the specification?
Regarding claim 14, the claim is requiring the first ring element to have the bend that creates both an axially extending portion and a radially extending portion. The first ring element defined as 2 in the disclosure does not include such a feature as disclosed. The feature being claimed is contributed to the second ring or element 4. Because of this what is being claimed does not find support in the original written description and it cannot be said that Applicant clearly had possession of this configuration at the time of filing. Claim 14 should be amended to introduce the second ring element and state that this element includes these features to match the written description as filed.
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 1-16 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 “large-diameter roller bearing” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large-diameter roller bearing” 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 diameters are considered large? The disclosure sets forth a device for the bearing to be used in but a wind turbine has bearings of all different sizes and thus it is not clear what would qualify as a large-diameter roller bearing.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what defines a zone of maximum stress. The claim is drawn to a static independent cage which would be under no stress and thus it is unclear how the radius is actually increasing or decreasing. It is further unclear, even if in use, what defines the zone of maximum stress. Applicant states that this can occur but does not disclose what the actual zone or location of maximum stress is in the cage and this can vary cage to cage based on other design aspects of the cage and thus it is unclear what the claim is actually structurally limiting the device to. It is also unclear what type of stress is being referenced, is this contact stress or shear stress? Torsional stress or some other form of stress on the part?
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear how the recess depth is being “defined by the edge reduction” in lines 10-11. This clause in the claim appears to be independent from all other clauses and thus appears to be incomplete as no relationship is defined that would define one feature relative to the other. How does the edge reduction define the recess depth? What is this relationship? It appears that this might be in reference to the inequality later defined in the claim, if this is the case the clauses should be combined and rephrased to make this relationship clear.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the at least one radius of curvature" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be - -the first radius of curvature- - to match the language of claim 1.
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, 2, 7, 8 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harich, USP 10,683,896.
Regarding claim 1, Harich discloses a bearing cage configured for a large-diameter roller bearing and comprising: a first ring element (2), and a first bridge (6) extending substantially axially from a first connection region (12) of the first ring element, wherein the first connection region includes a first recess (14-1) extending into the first ring element (2), the first recess having a radially outer end (end positioned on the radially outer side of 2) and a radially inner end (end positioned on the radially inner side of 2) and a first radius of curvature at a location between the radially outer end and the radially inner end (the recess is a curved surface throughout the axial thickness of the cage, each end defining a radius ra or ri, the points between the two ends also define the same curve and have a radius), the first radius of curvature being constant (r in figure 4 is constant and the curvature in the region of y in figure 3 appears constant) or variable.
Regarding claim 2, Harich discloses that the first radius of curvature is constant (r in figure 4 is constant and the curvature in the region of y in figure 3 appears constant).
Regarding claim 7, Harich discloses a second ring element (4), wherein the first bridge (6) is connected to the second ring element at a second connection region (12 on left side of figure 1) having a second recess (14-2 in figure 1), and wherein a circumferential width of the first bridge in the second connection region is smaller than a circumferential width of the first bridge in the first connection region (the cage is a tapered roller cage, the bridge types from Smax at the first connection to Smin, while Smin is illustrated in the middle of the bridge in figure 1 the bridge in a tapered roller bearing continuously tapers to properly support that narrow end of the rolling element).
Regarding claim 8, Harich discloses that a circumferential width of the first bridge in the second connection region is smaller than a circumferential width of the first bridge at a location between the first connection region and the second connection region (the cage is a tapered roller cage, the bridge tapers from Smax at the first connection to Smin, while Smin is illustrated in the middle of the bridge in figure 1 the bridge in a tapered roller bearing continuously tapers to properly support that narrow end of the rolling element and thus the width of the bridge at the second end is the minimum width absent any other cutouts, the illustration in figure 1 shows no additional cutouts in the bridge). See additional rejection using Isobe below.
Regarding claim 13, Harich discloses that the first ring element and the first bridge are formed from sheet metal (see column 5, lines 14 and 16 disclosing a metal plate with a thickness or in other words sheet metal, this matches the “metal plate” disclosure of the instant application).
Regarding claim 14, the claim defines the first ring as having the bend, however the bend is element 40 in the disclosure and this is only shown as part of the second ring, and the claim will be examined consistent with the disclosure and drawings where it would the second ring and second recess that have the features defined in the claim. Harish discloses that the first [second] ring element has a radially extending portion (see figure 1) and an axially extending portion (transition into bridge) connected by a bend portion (rounded corner) having a radius, and wherein the first [second] recess is spaced from the bend portion (figure 1 which shows a space between the position of the bend and the recess).
Regarding claim 15, Harich discloses a roller bearing comprising: an inner ring, an outer ring, a bearing cage (see disclosure in column 3, lines 47-51) according to claim 7 disposed between the inner ring and the outer ring, and a plurality of roller elements mounted in the bearing cage (each pocket in the cage holds a rolling element 10).
Regarding claim 16, Harich discloses that the roller elements have a first end surface facing the first ring element and a second end surface facing the second ring element a running surface between the first end surface and the second end surface, the running surface being configured to roll on the inner ring and on the outer ring and to contact the first bridge (two axial ends of the roller and the rolling surface running therebetween), wherein at a transition region between first end surface and the running surface the first end surface is offset radially inward by an edge reduction value so that the running surface is shorter by the edge reduction value than a total longitudinal extension of the roller element between the first end surface and the second end surface (see figure 5b showing the same edge reduction at k), wherein a recess depth of the recess on the bearing cage is defined by the edge reduction value, wherein the at least one radius of curvature in the first connection region satisfies the inequality: (r-y)≤ k, wherein r is the at least one radius of curvature, y is the recess depth, and k is the edge reduction value (Harich illustrates the same device, the disclosure in column 6 also defines the same equations as in paragraphs 0030, 0053 and 0059 in the instant application, thus Harich is disclosing the same device with the same ranges of parameters which would also meet the new equation set forth in the instant application and claimed above. In other words, based on the similarity of the two discloses the same device is being defined, the same device would satisfy all the same equations, in the instant case it appears Applicant has developed a new equation to define the same previously disclosed device, developing a new equation does not make the old structure new novel or inventive and based on the similarity of the devices as illustrated and defined by the common equations between the two applications the cages are the same and thus Harich would also meet this claim requirement).
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nonato de Paula, USP 10,138,940 (Paula).
Regarding claim 1, Paula discloses a bearing cage configured for a large-diameter roller bearing and comprising: a first ring element (148), and a first bridge (150) extending substantially axially from a first connection region (at 162) of the first ring element, wherein the first connection region includes a first recess (at 164/166) extending into the first ring element (148), the first recess having a radially outer end (end positioned on the radially outer side of cage) and a radially inner end (end positioned on the radially inner side of the cage) and a first radius of curvature at a location between the radially outer end and the radially inner end (the recess is a curved surface throughout the axial thickness of the cage, each end defining a radius, the points between the two ends also define the same curve and have a radius), the first radius of curvature being constant or variable (the curvature in this region has at least two different radius values, R1 and R2 and is thus variable, the region also varies between R2 and R3).
Regarding claim 3, Paula discloses that the first radius of curvature is variable (the curvature in this region has at least two different radius values, R1 and R2 and is thus variable).
Regarding claim 4, Paula, as best understood, discloses that the first radius of curvature increases towards a zone of maximum stress and decreases outside of the zone of maximum stress (the zone of maximum stress is not disclosed and for the purpose of applying art the general shape of Paula is being compared to that of the instant application where the curvature increases from the root of the bridge to the end face contact zone with the rolling element, see figure 3b, in Paula the radius also increases from R1 to R3 just like in the instant application and thus, as best understood Paula anticipates the claim requirement).
Regarding claim 5, Paula discloses that the first radius of curvature varies continuously (the radius continuously changes from R1 to R3).
Regarding claim 6, Paula discloses that the first radius of curvature varies exponentially, logarithmically, and/or according to an nth degree polynomial (an nth degree polynomial has no specifically defined shape and would be only limited to a continuously curved surface, this can include numerous inflection points or radius, thus the three radius regions R1-R3 in Paula which are all continuously connected can be described as a curvature according to an nth degree polynomial).
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-10, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isobe, US PGPub 20220154767.
Regarding claim 1, Isobe discloses a bearing cage (5) configured for a large-diameter roller bearing and comprising: a first ring element (7), and a first bridge (8) extending substantially axially from a first connection region (10a/10b) of the first ring element, wherein the first connection region includes a first recess (10b as shown in figure 10b) extending into the first ring element (7), the first recess having a radially outer end (corresponds to 10a) and a radially inner end (corresponds to 10b) and a first radius of curvature at a location between the radially outer end and the radially inner end (the recess is a curved surface throughout the axial thickness of the cage, each end defining a radius, the points between the two ends also define the same curve and have a radius), the first radius of curvature being constant (the actual curved region of 10b appears constant) or variable.
Regarding claim 2, Isobe discloses that the first radius of curvature is constant (the curved region of 10b appears as a constant curvature and thus a constant radius).
Regarding claim 7, Isobe discloses a second ring element (6), wherein the first bridge (8) is connected to the second ring element at a second connection region (at 10b in figure 10b) having a second recess (10b), and wherein a circumferential width of the first bridge in the second connection region is smaller than a circumferential width of the first bridge in the first connection region (see figure 3c where the width at 10b at the narrowest point on the left or second ring side is narrower than the width at 10b at its narrowest point on the right or first ring side).
Regarding claim 8, Isobe discloses that a circumferential width of the first bridge in the second connection region is smaller than a circumferential width of the first bridge at a location between the first connection region and the second connection region (the width of the bridge at 10b is clearly smaller than at 11b or 11a of the bridge portion).
Regarding claim 9, Isobe discloses a second bridge (8, multiple bridges 8 are used) extending between the first ring element and the second ring element, the first and second ring elements and the first and second bridges defining a pocket (9), wherein a circumferential distance between the first bridge and the second bridge is a pocket width, wherein an axial distance between the first ring element and the second ring element is a pocket length (illustrated as L in Isobe), and wherein the pocket width is smallest at a position spaced 20% to 60% of the pocket length from the second ring element (the smallest width is the space between adjacent bridges in the region of La, La in figure 10b spans a region that includes 50% of the pocket length from the second ring or in other words the middle of the pocket, the middle of the pocket includes this smallest width region).
Regarding claim 10, Isobe discloses that the second ring element has a smaller diameter than a diameter of the first ring element (see figure 10a, 6 is on the small diameter side of the tapered bearing and 7 is on the large diameter side), and wherein the smallest pocket width is located at a position spaced 25% to 55% of the pocket length from the second ring element (again the smallest width portion expands the whole region of La which covers the claimed range).
Regarding claim 14, the claim defines the first ring as having the bend, however the bend is element 40 in the disclosure and this is only shown as part of the second ring, and the claim will be examined consistent with the disclosure and drawings where it would the second ring and second recess that have the features defined in the claim. Isobe discloses that the first [second] ring element has a radially extending portion (see figure 10) and an axially extending portion (transition into bridge) connected by a bend portion (rounded corner) having a radius, and wherein the first [second] recess is spaced from the bend portion (recess indicated by the dashed line adjacent 9a’, this is spaced from the bend).
Regarding claim 15, Isobe discloses a roller bearing comprising: an inner ring (3), an outer ring (2), a bearing cage (5) according to claim 7 disposed between the inner ring and the outer ring, and a plurality of roller elements (4) mounted in the bearing cage.
Conclusion
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