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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 16-2a and 18-2a. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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.
Claim 1-10, 13-15 and 17 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how a radius defines a center axis as stated in the last two lines of the claim. The radius values defined in the claim are based off of the “radially inner end” and the “radially outer end” of the first recess, this is a single location in the radial direction and when the radius is drawn it forms an arch with a center point. There is no thickness contributed to the radius measurement in the claim nor is a radius commonly defined in this manner thus there would be only points, the center points, that the radius defines, points are not inclined relative to each other. The claim needs to define regions and then compare the radial extent of each region with respect to each other, an inscribed radius of curvature does not have a central axis as it is a two dimensional value.
NOTE: any additional language added to the claim to describe this feature needs to have antecedent basis in the disclosure.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what “in a direction of the first ring element” is. The first ring is a three dimensional object and it is unclear if this is referencing a particular direction toward the ring or the circumferential direction. In addition the claim is attempting to define an increasing value however no datum point is establish, from what location does the radius begin to increase from?
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harich, USP 10,683,896.
Regarding claim 16, Harich discloses a roller bearing comprising an inner ring, and outer ring, a bearing cage disposed between the inner ring and the outer ring (see column 3, lines 47-51), and a plurality of roller elements (10) mounted in the bearing cage, wherein the bearing cage comprises: a first ring element (2) and a second ring element (4) 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 the radially inner end, the first radius of curvature being constant (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, r in figure 4 is constant and the curvature in the region of y in figure 3 appears constant) or variable, wherein the first bridge is connected to the second ring element at a second connection region having a second recess (at 12 on the side of ring 4), wherein the roller elements have a first end surface facing the first ring element, a second end surface facing the second ring element and 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 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 13-15 and 17 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: Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the claimed combination with a cage having a recess having the variable radius profile, specifically with two regions of different radius sizes, while also including the first region with the first radius being inclined relative to the second region with the second radius.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 17, 2026 with respect to claim 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 16 Applicant argues that the conclusion reached in the prior rejection that because of the similarity between the instant applicant and Harich that Harich also satisfies the inequality. In other words Applicant’s argument is because Harich does not explicitly state the inequality it does not anticipate the claim and Applicant references MPEP 2112. However, the claim is stating that the device “satisfies” the equation. Satisfying a condition does not require that the prior art actually explicitly recite the equation. It is because of the similarity of the drawings, which are generally identical with the exception of the new figure added in the instant application, in combination with the other equations that define k, y and r values that are identical between the two documents that the conclusion is made that the prior disclosure in Harich satisfies the equation. Between the two documents the values off r, k and y are defined the same way, for example both disclosures state 1.2≤k/y≤1.8, 1.1k≤r≤1.4k, and the additional equations regarding ra and ri. If these equations that actually limit the range of the part are required in both disclosures the device is the same and satisfies condition (r-y)≤k. Put another way, because the four equations that are identical would limit the values of k, y an r to the same numerical ranges the result device would also satisfy the new equation with the same data set, this is not to say that all combinations with the ranges for k, y and r would satisfy the condition but “all” is not the requirement for anticipation, only one combination with the subsets for the variable must, and this case would, satisfy the condition absent any evidence to the contrary. The difference between the two documents is the presence of different regions within the recessed area, however there is no distinction between the regions of the recess made in claim 16. The concept of two different regions that are distinct from each other by having different radius values is not captured by claim 16, thus claim 16 is broader than the disclosure and covers a device that that has the same radius at the first end and the second end of the recess, this is what Harich discloses. All other aspects of the particular shape of the recess is the same between the two document, if the device of the instant application must satisfy all the same inequalities that require the r, y and k values that fall within numerical ranges the disclosure of Harich would also satisfy the condition defined by the new inequality which is not numerical bound. As a result of this conclusion MPEP 2112.01 applies, specifically section I and Applicant has provided no evidence to rebut this conclusion.
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 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
Prosecution Insights