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.
Claim 19 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.
In Claim 19, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Is it a standalone adaptor or must it be placed in combination with the cage? If the cage is required, then the first and second recess is clear as the preamble does not match the body of the claim. If the cage is meant to not be positively recited, it is unclear how many recesses the adapter would have because it is only defined as having a second recess and the first recess of the cage is not limiting as the cage would be an intended use limitation. The Applicant also seems to be attempting to define the mating shape of the adaptor based off the recess of the cage, so it would be more suggestive that it is a combination but as notated above, the preamble only disclose an adapter. The adapter body being “configured to” does not define a structure, “configured to” defines a function. For the purpose of examination, the adapter can be viewed as the cage element itself.
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) 1-4, 6, 9, 12-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morita (JPH0972334A).
Regarding claim 1, Morita disclose (in annotated fig. 1 and annotated fig. 3) a non-recirculating rolling element bearing (fig. 1) in an overrunning cage configuration,
the bearing (fig .1) comprising:
a guide (3) defining a direction of motion and comprising a first guiding surface (3c and 3d) being V-shaped,
wherein the first guiding surface (3c and 3d) comprises a first (3c) and a second rolling surface (3d),
a motion stage (6) configured to move along the direction of motion between a first end (FE) and a second end (SE) of the guide (3),
wherein the motion stage (6) comprises a second guiding surface (6c and 6d) comprising a third (6d) and a fourth rolling surface (6c) arranged opposite to the first (3c) and second rolling surface (3d), respectively,
a cage (14) partially interposed between the guide (3) and the motion stage (6),
the cage (14) comprising a first (1RE), a second (2RE) and a third set of rolling elements (3RE1, 3RE2),
wherein the first set of rolling elements (1RE) is arranged to roll on the first (3c) and third rolling surface (6d), the second set of rolling elements (2RE) is arranged to roll on the second (3d) and fourth rolling surface (6c) and the third set of rolling elements (3RE1, 3RE2) is arranged to roll on the first rolling surface (3c),
wherein the guide (3) and each rolling element of the third set of rolling elements (3RE1, 3RE2) are configured to magnetically attract one another to bias the cage (14) towards the guide (3),
wherein in a first state, in which the motion stage (6) is moved towards the first end (FE) of the guide (3), a first rolling element (3RE1) of the third set of rolling elements (3RE1, 3RE2) is positioned between the second end (SE) of the guide and a first end (FE1) of the motion stage (6) arranged nearest to the second end (SE) of the guide (3), and wherein in a second state, in which the motion stage (6) is moved towards the second end (SE) of the guide (3), a second rolling element (3RE2) of the third set of rolling elements (3RE1, 3RE2) is positioned between the first end (FE) of the guide (3) and a second end (SE1) of the motion stage (6) nearest to the first end (FE) of the guide (3).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
511
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
308
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Morita discloses the rolling element bearing according to claim 1, wherein each rolling element of the third set of rolling elements (3RE1, 3RE2) is configured to magnetically attract the first rolling surface (3c) stronger than the second rolling surface (3d).
Regarding claim 3, Morita discloses the rolling element bearing according to claim 1, wherein each rolling element of the third set of rolling elements (3RE) comprises at least a part made of a permanently magnetized material (para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 4, Morita discloses the rolling element bearing according to claim 3, wherein each rolling element of the first set of rolling elements (1RE) has a first volume (para. [0030] discloses there are 8 rolling elements 11, which means 1RE and 2RE each make up a volume of 4) and wherein the at least part of each rolling element of the third set of rolling elements (3RE) has a second volume (para. [0029] discloses that there are three rolling element 12, so 3RE1 and 3RE2 makes up a volume of 2), and wherein the first volume (4 rolling elements 1RE) is larger than the second volume (2 rolling elements 3RE1, 3RE2).
Regarding claim 6, Morita discloses the rolling element bearing according to claim 3, wherein the part of each rolling element of the third set of rolling elements (3RE1, 3RE2) is arranged to roll on the first rolling surface (3c).
Regarding claim 9, Morita discloses the rolling element bearing according to claim 3, wherein the part of each rolling element of the third set of rolling elements (3RE1, 3RE2) is magnetized in an axial direction of magnetization (3RE1 and 3RE2 are made of magnets so they will be magnetized in an axial direction of magnetization. The magnetized direction doesn’t limit the claim to any particular structure or arrangement of magnetized regions and thus all magnetic rollers can be said to have this feature under the BRI).
Regarding claim 12, Morita discloses the rolling element bearing according to claim 1, wherein the guide (3), the cage (14), and the motion stage (6) are each configured to provide a linear motion of the motion stage (6).
Regarding claim 13, Morita discloses the rolling element bearing according to claim 1, wherein the first (3RE1) and the second rolling element (3RE2) of the third set of rolling elements (3RE1, 3RE2) are configured to flank at least part of the first set of rolling elements (1RE), respectively (3RE1 and 3RE1 are on opposite ends and flanks all the rollers).
Regarding claim 14, Morita discloses the rolling element bearing according to claim 1, wherein a first distance between axes of the first (3RE1) and second rolling element (3RE2) of the third set of rolling elements (3RE1, 3RE2) is larger than a second distance between the first (FE1) and second end (SE1) of the motion stage (6).
Regarding claim 15, Morita discloses the rolling element bearing according to claim 1, wherein along the direction of motion the first guiding surface (3c and 3d) extends over a first length between the corresponding first (FE) and second end (SE), the cage (14) extends over a second length, and the second guiding surface (6c and 6d) extends over a third length between the corresponding first (FE) and second end (SE), wherein the second length is smaller than the first length and larger than the third length.
Regarding claim 20, Morita discloses the rolling element bearing according to claim 2, wherein each rolling element of the third set of rolling elements (3RE1, 3RE2) is further configured to magnetically attract the first rolling surface (3c) stronger than at least one of the third and the fourth rolling surface (6c, the roller has less surface area with 6c than 3c so the magnetic force would be stronger at 3c than 6c).
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) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (JPH0972334A) in view of Teramachi (US 6419069 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Morita discloses the rolling element bearing according claim 1 but does not disclose an adapter comprising an adapter body received in a first recess of a plurality of first recesses of the cage configured to retain rolling elements of the first set, wherein the adapter body is configured to in part occupy the first recess and leave vacant an unoccupied part arranged to rotatably retaining a rolling element of the third set of rolling elements.
Teramachi teaches (in fig. 3a) an adapter (23) comprising an adapter body (body of 23) received in a first recess of a plurality of first recesses (recesses holding rollers 8 or 9) of the cage (22) configured to retain rolling elements of the first set (8 or 9), wherein the adapter body (body of 23) is configured to in part occupy the first recess (recess holding 8 or 9) and leave vacant an unoccupied part arranged to rotatably retaining a rolling element of the third set of rolling elements (8 or 9) for the purpose of regulating or restricting each roller to its suitable posture (abstract).
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 adapter, as taught by Teramachi, in the rolling element bearing of Morita, for the purpose of regulating or restricting each roller to its suitable posture (abstract).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Morita discloses rolling element bearing in an overrunning cage configuration but does not disclose an adapter comprising an adapter body arranged to be received in a first recess of a cage of the bearing, wherein the adapter body is configured to in part occupy the first recess and comprises a second recess arranged to rotatably retain a rolling element of the bearing, wherein the second recess is smaller than the first recess.
Teramachi teaches (in fig. 3a) an adapter (23) comprising an adapter body (body of 23) arranged to be received in a first recess (103) holding of a cage (21) of the bearing (100), wherein the adapter body (23) is configured to in part occupy the first recess (103) and comprises a second recess (recess holding 8 or 9) arranged to rotatably retain a rolling element (8, 9) of the bearing (100), wherein the second recess (recess holding 8 or 9) is smaller than the first recess (103) for the purpose of regulating or restricting each roller to its suitable posture (abstract).
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 adapter, as taught by Teramachi, in the rolling element bearing of Morita, for the purpose of regulating or restricting each roller to its suitable posture (abstract).
Response to Arguments
With regards to the drawing objection, applicant amendment have overcome the previously raised issue.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection on claim 18, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection on claim 19, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue but raised other issues.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-11, Applicant is arguing that Morita fails to teach, or even suggest, a rolling element bearing in an overrunning cage configuration as recited in claim 1, where the last cause in claim 1 explicitly defines the “overrunning” nature of the cage and that the raceway 6 is only position further back in order to show the cage in fig. 1. However, para. [0019] and para. [0033] of Morita discloses that raceway 6 is on the movable side, so it is unclear how raceway 6 cannot go back and forward similar to the instant application via the arrow K of the last clause of claim 1 as fig. 1 seems to illustrate.
Applicant seems to be trying to define the term “overrunning” in their arguments but the specification is not explicitly defining what “overrunning” means. What structure is needed for “overrunning”? What degree of “overrun” is needed for the invention to be considered “overrunning”? The claims seem to be broader than what the Applicant is arguing and it appears Applicant is attempting to read limitations in to the claims.
It also seems like Applicant is trying to define this concept explicitly in claim 14, but if Applicant is trying to claim the distance between the first roller of the cage and the last roller of the cage is longer than the carriage itself, then it is not as specific enough. As it is written, the claim is broad enough that the rollers of the prior art can be define however necessary.
On pages 12-14, Applicant is arguing about the combination of Morita in view of Teramachi. Applicant argues that Morita fails to teach the claimed “overrunning” configuration, but as stated before, there are no definition on what “overrunning” means in the specification. Teramachi is not used to teach the “overrunning” configuration and it is only used to teach the adapter limitations of claim 16 and 19.
Applicant then states that claim 19 has been amended to be an independent claim for an adapter but the amendment brings in 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues as discussed above. Applicant argues that Teramachi does not teach an adapter but claim 19 is unclear as the claim should be reciting the adapter structure that the claim is seeking structure for. For example, defining the first recess in the cage does not mean anything as the subject matter of the cage is a standalone adapter. There is a second recess in the adapter but now it is unclear how many recesses the adapter has. What is it configured to occupy? Is this a combination claim? The Applicant seems to argue that the adapter has a specific use that Teramachi does not teach but it is not defined explicitly in the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-8, 10-11, 18 and 21 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 5, 7-8, 10, and 18.
In particular, for claim 5, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render the rolling element bearing comprising a cage body comprising a first and a second surface configured to face the first and the second rolling surface, respectively, wherein the first set of rolling elements have a first and second clearance, respectively, with respect to the second surface, and wherein the first clearance is smaller than the second clearance in combination with the other claim limitations.
In particular, for claim 7, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render the rolling element bearing comprising each rolling element of the first set of rolling elements has a first height, and wherein the part of each rolling element of the third set of rolling elements has a second height, wherein the second height is smaller than the first height in combination with the other claim limitations.
In particular, for claim 8, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render the rolling element bearing comprising each rolling element of the first set of rolling elements has a first diameter, and wherein the part of each rolling element of the third set of rolling elements has a second diameter, wherein the second diameter is smaller than the first diameter in combination with the other claim limitations.
In particular, for claim 10, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render the rolling element bearing comprising a cage body comprising a first and a second surface configured to face the first and the second rolling surface, respectively, wherein each rolling element of the second set of rolling elements and the part of each rolling element of the fourth set of rolling elements have a third and a fourth clearance, respectively, with respect to the first surface, and wherein the third clearance is smaller than the fourth clearance in combination with the other claim limitations.
In particular, for claim 18, the prior art of record does not disclose the rolling element comprising a cage body comprising a first surface configured to face a first rolling surface of a V-shaped guiding surface of a guide of the bearing, and a second surface configured to face a second rolling surface of said V-shaped guiding surface in combination with the other claim limitations. This means that the cage needs to have the first and second surface on the same V-shaped side.
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