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 § 103
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 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) 1, 4-5, 7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno (US 5015105 A) in view of Fujiwara (WO 2010119835 A1) and in further view of Miyamoto (US 20130114921 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ueno discloses (in annotated fig. 1 and 5) a cage (fig. 1) comprising:
an annular portion (AP);
and a plurality of horn portions (12) protruding from the annular portion (AP) toward a first side, and circumferentially equidistantly spaced apart from each other,
wherein the cage (fig. 1) has pockets (11) located between respective
circumferentially adjacent pairs of the horn portions (12),
and respective balls (15) as rolling elements of a deep groove ball bearing being received within the pockets (11, col. 1, lines 5-12),
wherein each of the horn portions (12) includes a base (BA) axially continuous with the annular portion (AP);
and a pair of claws (12a) protruding from the base (BA) toward the first axial side,
wherein a wall thickness (wt) of the cage (fig. 1) from a bottom of each of the pockets (11) to an end surface of the annular portion on a second axial side is 10% to 20% of the ball diameter D (SBD, shown in annotated fig. 1),
wherein an axial length (d) of each of the claws of the horn portions is 60% to 80% of the steel ball diameter D (shown in annotated fig. 1),
wherein the cage (fig. 1) is entirely formed of a resin material (abstract, PPS and PEEK).
Ueno does not disclose the ball is made out of steel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ball be made out of steel for its high durability and load capacity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Ueno does not disclose a ball diameter D of each of the steel balls is 13 mm to 18 mm.
Fujiwara teaches a ball diameter D of each of the steel balls is 25.44 mm or less, which would include the range of 13 to 18 mm (pg. 21, first paragraph discloses that it is standard for balls of deep groove ball bearings to be 25.44 mm or less to be able to calculate the basic dynamic load rating using the Lundberg-Palmgren theory).
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 ball diameter be 25.44 mm or less, which would include the range of 13 to 18 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Ueno in view of Fujiwara teaches when a tensile strength of the resin material is denoted by σ, a cross-sectional area A of a portion of the cage between each circumferentially adjacent pair of the pockets is set within a range of the following formula (1):
<Formula (l)>
A > (511D-4027)/ σ
What the claim is stating is that a cross sectional area A of a portion of the cage between each circumferentially adjacent pair of the pockets is greater than a constant 511 multiple by the steel ball diameter (D) minus by the constant 4027, and then all be divided by the tensile strength (σ). The cross section is a particular size or larger based on the steel ball diameter (D) and the material being used. This equation would be obvious under the case law, change in size.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the cross section of a portion of the cage between each circumferentially adjacent pair of pockets be based on a particular size or larger based on the steel ball diameter and the material used, 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). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The particular size that would be determined does not structurally limit the invention. A person of ordinary skill would be able to come up with another equation that uses different constants but still define the same area. As a result, this equation is not inventive and the disclosure of Ueno in view of Fujiwara shows a device that would meet this equation.
Ueno in view of Fujiwara does not disclose a gap between an inner surface of each of the pockets and a corresponding one of the steel balls is 1% to 4% of steel ball diameter D.
Miyamoto teaches (in fig. 4) a gap between an inner surface of each of the pockets (15) and a corresponding one of the steel balls (15) is 2% to 5% of ball diameter D, which would include most of the necessary range, for the purpose of preventing damage to the holder (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 range of the gap, as taught by Miyamoto, in the cage of Ueno in Fujiwara for the for the purpose of preventing damage to the holder (abstract).
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a gap between an inner surface of each of the pockets and a corresponding one of the steel balls be 1% to 4% of steel ball diameter D, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
788
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Ueno in view of Fujiwara and in further view of Miyamoto teaches the cage according to claim 1, wherein the resin material includes a synthetic resin comprising an engineering plastic (Ueno abstract, PPS and PEEK).
Regarding claim 5, Ueno in view of Fujiwara and in further view of Miyamoto teaches the cage according to claim 1, wherein the resin material does not include a reinforcing material, and the tensile strength is 85 Mpa or more (The data sheet for PEEK states that the average tensile strength is 98.9 Mpa).
Regarding claim 7, Ueno in view of Fujiwara and in further view of Miyamoto teaches (in Ueno fig. 1) a deep groove ball bearing comprising: the cage (fig. 1) according to claim 1; an inner ring (not shown); an outer ring (not shown); and the steel balls (15), which are disposed between the inner ring (not shown) and the outer ring (not shown, col. 4, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 10, Ueno in view of Fujiwara and in further view of Miyamoto teaches (in Ueno fig. 1) a deep groove ball bearing comprising: the cage (fig. 1) according to claim 4; an inner ring (not shown); an outer ring (not shown); and the steel balls (15), which are disposed between the inner ring (not shown) and the outer ring (not shown, col. 4, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 11, Ueno in view of Fujiwara and in further view of Miyamoto teaches (in Ueno fig. 1) a deep groove ball bearing comprising: the cage (fig. 1) according to claim 5; an inner ring (not shown); an outer ring (not shown); and the steel balls (15), which are disposed between the inner ring (not shown) and the outer ring (not shown, col. 4, lines 15-20).
Claim(s) 2-3, 6, 8-9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno (US 5015105 A) in view of Fujiwara (WO 2010119835 A1) and in further view of Miyamoto (US 20130114921 A1) and in further view of Fujii (JPH07197936 A).
Regarding claim 2, Ueno in view of Fujiwara and in further view of Miyamoto teaches the cage according to claim 1 but does not teach the resin material includes carbon fiber as a reinforcing material.
Fujii teaches the resin material includes carbon fiber as a reinforcing material with a composition of 5 to 20 wt% (claim 3) for the purpose of improving mechanical strength (para. [0005]).
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 carbon fiber as a reinforcing material with a composition of 5 to 20 wt%, as taught by Fujii, in the cage of Ueno in view of Fujiwara and in further view of Miyamoto for the purpose of improving mechanical strength (para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Ueno in view of Fujiwara teaches the cage according to claim 1 but does not teach the resin material includes graphite as a reinforcing material.
Fujii teaches the resin material includes graphite as a reinforcing material for the purpose of improving sliding properties (para. [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have graphite as a reinforcing material, as taught by Fuiji, in the cage of Ueno in view of Fujiwara and in further view of Miyamoto for the purpose of improving sliding properties (para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 6, Ueno in view of Fujiwara and in further view of Miyamoto and in further view of Fujii teaches the cage according to claim 2, wherein the reinforcing material is added to the resin material so as to account for 5 to 40% of the resin material (claim 3 discloses the composition of carbon fiber is between 5 to 16 wt%, which is between 5 to 40%).
Regarding claim 8, Ueno in view of Fujiwara and in further view of Miyamoto and in further view of Fujii teaches (in Ueno fig. 1) a deep groove ball bearing comprising: the cage (fig. 1) according to claim 2; an inner ring (not shown); an outer ring (not shown); and the steel balls (15), which are disposed between the inner ring (not shown) and the outer ring (not shown, col. 4, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 9, Ueno in view of Fujiwara and in further view of Miyamoto and in further view of Fujii teaches (in Ueno fig. 1) a deep groove ball bearing comprising: the cage (fig. 1) according to claim 3; an inner ring (not shown); an outer ring (not shown); and the steel balls (15), which are disposed between the inner ring (not shown) and the outer ring (not shown, col. 4, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 12, Ueno in view of Fujiwara and in further view of Miyamoto and in further view of Fujii teaches (in Ueno fig. 1) a deep groove ball bearing comprising: the cage (fig. 1) according to claim 6; an inner ring (not shown); an outer ring (not shown); and the steel balls (15), which are disposed between the inner ring (not shown) and the outer ring (not shown, col. 4, lines 15-20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10, Applicant discuss the amendment to claim 1 where “a gap between an inner surface of each of the pockets and a corresponding one of the steel balls is 1% to 4% of steel ball diameter D” and the benefits the feature in combination with the rest of the claimed limitation would affect the cage. However, this is an additional limitation to the claim that does not tie into the equation of the instant application and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Defining the result/function of a structural limitation does not structurally further limit the claimed invention.
On page 10, Applicant further argues that their formula is not a design choice related to a mere change of size but set forth three different parameters for a very particular relationship between three different parameters:
a particular relationship between the cross-sectional area A of a portion of the cage between each circumferentially adjacent pair of pockets,
the diameter D of the steel ball to be fit with a respective pocket,
a tensile strength of the resin material.
However, the Examiner disagrees as taking a few parameters and developing an equation for them is not inventive as the prior art combination has these parameters. As it stands, the equation is an arbitrary equation developed to fit the bearing of the invention and it is not actually limiting the claim to any new or novel structure.
Applicant is defining the change of size by an equation rather than numerically, the development of an equation to describe something old is not inventive. Furthermore, as addressed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188, 209 USPQ2d 1, 9 (1981), a basic equation is like a law of nature and is not patentable, see MPEP 2106.05(e), while in this case the equation is being used in a meaningful way the equation is a stand-in for a specific value and thus the equation or the development thereof cannot be considered as inventive. Ultimately the prior art of record discloses change of size, regardless of how this is defined or what range the invention is limited to the claimed invention is not inventive in view of the prior art of record.
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