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 references cited in the PCT international search report by the June 13, 2023 have been considered, but will not be listed on any patent resulting from this application because they were not provided on a separate list in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). In order to have the references printed on such resulting patent, a separate listing, preferably on a PTO/SB/08 form, must be filed within the set period for reply to this Office action.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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: 5b and 5c.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification needs to include a cross reference to related applications section, see 37 CFR 1.77(b), item (b)(2).
The application also uses the abbreviation “EV” (page 1, last paragraph) but does not define what this is. Is this - -electric vehicle- - or some other term?
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 and 6, line 2, “developed” can be deleted, the claim is referencing what is simply called a “plane view” and the use of the term “developed” is unnecessary.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. First the claim defines a “rotational range” and it is unclear if this means that the bearing only operates in a specific angular range or if this is intended to mean something else, such as rotational speed. The claim attempts to define this feature using a dm·n value but the claim never defines what dm and n are, the specification does not clarify this either, and thus it is unclear what this is actually defining. Dm in bearings is commonly used as either a mean diameter or a ball diameter, in this case D is used for the ball diameter and no mean diameter is indicated in the drawings that would lead on to believe that this is what is also being referenced. N is normally just a number but the specification does not disclose what N stands for. Because of this lack of information the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be clearly established.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 depends from claim 7 which is drawn to a bearing, claim 8, as best understood, appears to be defining a rotational speed requirement for the bearing, however how the bearing is used does not structurally further limit the invention. Defining an intended use or how the bearing is intended to be operated fails to further limit the invention since it does not provide any additional distinguishing structure to the apparatus. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 4-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2021-152394 (JP394).
Regarding claim 1, JP394 discloses an annular rolling bearing cage (5) formed by injection-molding (product-by-process recitation, see MPEP 2213, however see page 2 of the attached translation, 2nd paragraph in the description) a resin composition (see page 2 of the attached translation, 2nd paragraph in the description), the rolling bearing cage comprising rolling elements (4) and a plurality of pockets (6) for retaining the rolling elements, wherein: a thickness in a radial direction of an axial end surface of the cage is 2.00 mm or more (see top of page 9 discussing a made product/example where the cage includes and outer diameter of 93 mm and an inner diameter of 88, this results in a thickness of 5 mm); the resin composition contains polyamide resin as a base resin; and the polyamide resin is copolymerized polyamide containing a hexamethylene terephthalamide unit and a hexamethylene adipamide unit as a constitutional unit (see pages 3-4 of the attached translation, specifically the third to last full paragraph on page 3 that states that the resin is a copolymerized polyamide including a hexamethylene terephthalamide unit, the disclosure goes on to discuss the use of a monomer in the resin, this monomer is disclosed on the bottom of page 4 as a hexamethylene adipamide unit).
Regarding claim 2, JP394 discloses that the thickness in the radial direction of the axial end surface of the cage is 3.00 mm or more (as explained above, the example provided in the disclosure result in a thickness of 5 mm).
Regarding claim 4, JP394 discloses that the polyamide resin has a glass transition temperature of 80-110°C and a melting point of 300°C or more (see the middle of page 5 of the attached translation disclosing glass transition temperatures of 100 degrees or more and melting points greater than 280 degrees).
Regarding claim 5, JP394 discloses that the resin composition contains 10-50 wt% of glass fiber or carbon fiber relative to a whole of the resin composition (see page 6 of the translation, 3rd paragraph from the bottom which discloses the use of glass fiber or carbon fiber in the range of 10% or less, the disclosure of 10% anticipates the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7, JP394 discloses a rolling bearing (see figure 1) comprising: an inner ring (2); an outer ring (3); a plurality of rolling elements (4) intervened between the inner ring (2) and the outer ring (3); and a cage (5) which retains the rolling elements, wherein the cage is the rolling bearing cage as defined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the claim is defining some form of rotational range or speed that the bearing is subject to/used at, this does not structurally limit the claimed invention as noted above and is therefore treated as an intended use recitation which the device of JP394 is capable of being used at based on the similarity of structure and the materials disclosed therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2021-152394 (JP394).
Regarding claim 3, JP394 does not discloses that in a plane developed view of an outer diametrical surface of the cage, a diameter of an inscribed circle of a region surrounded by the pockets adjacent to each other and the axial end surface is 5.00 mm or more.
This recitation in the claim is in reference to feature 8 as shown in figure 4 of the instant application. The inscribed circle recitation is a phrasing developed by Applicant to ultimately define a spacing between the balls/pockets of the retainer. While JP394 clearly shows a significantly large spacing between the adjacent pockets the reference does not disclose any particular spacing. However, the limitation is ultimately defining a sizing requirement and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to set the balls/pocket to any desired spacing depending on the number of rolling elements one wishes to employee (the number of rolling elements altering the load capacity of the bearing), including setting and inscribed circle to a range of 5.0mm or more, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It also would have been obvious to select the range of 5.0 mm or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges (sizing of the cage component in general) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, JP394 discloses that the polyamide resin has a glass transition temperature of 80-110°C and a melting point of 300°C or more (see the middle of page 5 of the attached translation disclosing glass transition temperatures of 100 degrees or more and melting points greater than 280 degrees).
JP394 does not discloses that in a plane developed view of an outer diametrical surface of the cage, a diameter of an inscribed circle of a region surrounded by the pockets adjacent to each other and the axial end surface is 3.0-10.0 mm.
As noted above, this recitation in the claim is in reference to feature 8 as shown in figure 4 of the instant application. The inscribed circle recitation is a phrasing developed by Applicant to ultimately define a spacing between the balls/pockets of the retainer. While JP394 clearly shows a significantly large spacing between the adjacent pockets the reference does not disclose any particular spacing. However, the limitation is ultimately defining a sizing requirement and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to set the balls/pocket to any desired spacing depending on the number of rolling elements one wishes to employee (the number of rolling elements altering the load capacity of the bearing), including setting and inscribed circle to a range of 3-10mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It also would have been obvious to select the range of 3-10 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges (sizing of the cage component in general) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
JP394 further discloses an axial length (width) of 13mm, this in combination with the 5 mm thickness as explained above results in a ratio of length to thickness of 13/5 or 2.6. Because of this JP394 does not disclose ratio of 3-6.
However, this feature is also a matter of sizing of the cage and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to either increase the length or decrease the thickness of the cage to fit a specific size requirement since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It also would have been obvious to select the ratio range, since it has been held that where the general conditions are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges (sizing of the cage component in general) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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