DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claims 2-15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 should start with “An application of the rolling bearing”
Claims 3-15 should start with “The application of the rolling bearing”
Claim 2, line 7, “the nails” should say “nails”
Claim 4, line 1-2, “the thickness” should say “a thickness”
Claim 4, line 3, “the length” should say “a length”
Claim 5, lines 1-2, “the thickness” should say “a thickness”
Claim 6, line 2, “the length” should say “a length”
Claim 6, line 3, “the length” should say “a length”
Claim 7, line 2, “the length” should say “a length”
Claim 7, lines 5, “supporting part. deformation” should say “supporting part, when deformation occurs”
Claim 13, line 4, “the thickness” should say “a thickness”
Claim 14, line 2, “the front and rear ends” should say “a front and a rear end”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 112013021 A) in view of Gesmer (US 9126101 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses a rolling bearing (bearing 5, figs.1-13), characterized in that it comprises: an inner ring (inner ring 501), an outer ring (outer ring 502) and a plurality of balls (balls in bearing 5) distributed between the inner and outer rings, wherein the rolling bearing has a protruding ring (lug boss 503) extending outward from the inner ring (fig.3), the protruding ring and the inner ring are integrated into one piece (inner ring 501 and lug boss 503 are one piece), the end of the protruding ring forms an abutting end with abutting effect (end of lug boss 503 forms and abutting end). Zhou fails to disclose the protruding ring extending outward from the inner ring only on one side.
However, Gesmer discloses the protruding ring extending outward from the inner ring only on one side (extension section 174 is on inner ring and only on one side, figs.9-12).
Zhou and Gesmer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wheel bearings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou with the singular extension of Gesmer with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have been a simple substitution of one known bearing for another obtaining predictable results of allowing the bearing to be thinner allowing the wheels to be thinner for better agility and enhanced control.
Regarding claim 2, Zhou in combination with Gesmer, Zhou discloses an application of a rolling bearing to a roller skate (roller skate, figs.9-13), the roller skate comprises the rolling bearing as claimed in claim 1 and: a wheel frame (wheel frame 3) configured as a main body support (figs.1-13) of the roller skate, the wheel frame comprising a supporting part (supporting part as seen in attached figure below and figs.9-13) for connecting with a skate shoe body and two vertical plates (side plates 302) extending downward from both ends of the supporting part, respectively, a space for accommodating pulleys (space between plates 302 for wheel core 1 and tread material 4) being enclosed between the two vertical plates and the supporting part, the vertical plates being provided with through holes (pin hole 301) for the nails (pins 6) to pass through; each of the pulleys comprising a wheel core (wheel core 1), and an assembly hole (mounting hole 104) for installing a rolling bearing being (5) provided in a center of the wheel core (figs.1-13); the pulley being rotationally connected to the vertical plate through nails; a stop ring (ring 105) protruding toward a center of the assembly hole being provided in a middle of the assembly hole, and the rolling bearings are installed in pairs in the assembly hole (bearings 5), and the outer rings of the two rolling bearings are separated by stop rings (ring 105), the protruding rings of the two rolling bearings in the assembly hole are all inward and the abutting ends are in contact with each other (lug bosses 503); a protruding portion (ring 303, fig.13) for contacting the inner ring of the rolling bearing being provided at the through hole on the inner side of the vertical plates, the protruding portion protruding from the inner side of the vertical plate (fig.13), when the pulley being between the two vertical plates (figs.1-13), the protruding portion and the inner ring of the rolling bearing abutting against each other (fig.13).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Zhou in combination with Gesmer, Zhou discloses characterized in that: the outer ring peripheral surface of the rolling bearing has an interference fit with the assembly hole (outer ring 502 has an interference fit with mounting hole 104, paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou in combination with Gesmer, Zhou discloses characterized in that: the thickness of the stop ring forms a fixed spacing of the outer ring (ring 105), and the length of the single-sided extension of the inner ring of the rolling bearing, that is, the length of the protruding ring, is 1/2 of the fixed spacing of the outer ring (ring 105 has thickness 3.2mm and lug boss 503 has thickness 1.6mm, paragraph [0050]).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 112013021 A) in view of Gesmer (US 9126101 B2) and In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
Regarding claim 5, Zhou in combination with Gesmer and In Gardner v. TEC Syst discloses characterized in that: the thickness of the stop ring forms a fixed spacing of the outer ring (Zhou, ring 105, figs.5-8), the sum of the lengths of the two protruding rings (Zhou, lugs 303, fig.13) is greater than the fixed spacing of the outer ring, and the sum of the lengths of the two protruding rings is 0.1-0.3 mm greater than the fixed spacing of the outer ring (In Gardner v. TEC Syst discloses 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).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou in combination with Gesmer and In Gardner v. TEC Syst discloses characterized in that: among the two rolling bearings, the length of the outer ring protruding from the opening of the assembly hole is 0.5-1.2mm (outer ring 502 protrudes from the mounting hole 104 as seen in figures 5 and 11, In Gardner v. TEC Syst discloses 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), and the length of the protruding portion protruding from the inner side of the vertical plate is 2.2-2.8mm (lug 303, fig.13, In Gardner v. TEC Syst discloses 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).
Claim(s) 7, 9, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 112013021 A) in view of Gesmer (US 9126101 B2), and in further view of Svensson (US 5752708 A).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou in combination with Gesmer disclose the application of the rolling bearing of claim 2, but fail to disclose a reinforcing tube.
However, Svensson discloses the vertical plate includes a reinforcing tube (the plurality of cross braces 38, 40, and midbrace 36 form the reinforcing tube and the anti-torsion part, figs.1-7) arranged along the length direction of the vertical plate (walls 24 and 26) and an anti-torsion part (the plurality of cross braces 38, 40, and midbrace 36 form the reinforcing tube and the anti-torsion part, figs.1-7) connected to the supporting part; the reinforcing tube is configured to prevent the vertical plate from deforming (); and the anti-torsion part is configured to prevent the vertical plate from connecting with the supporting part. deformation occurs between them.
Zhou and Svensson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of skates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou with the braces of Svensson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of helping counter forces creatin during skating (Svensson, column 4 line 52 to column 5 line 36).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou in combination with Gesmer and Svensson, Svensson discloses characterized in that the cross section of the reinforcing tube is generally triangular (triangular shapes as seen in figures 2-7, the plurality of cross braces 38, 40, and midbrace 36 form the reinforcing tube and the anti-torsion part, figs.1-7).
Regarding claim 13, Zhou in combination with Gesmer and Svensson, Zhou discloses characterized in that: the vertical plate further includes a plate-shaped mounting part (plate shaped mounting part with pin hole 301 and pin 6, fig.9), the mounting part is configured as a pin for fixing the roller (pin shaft 6), the protruding part is provided on the mounting part (lug 303, fig.13); wall thickness of the anti-torsion part and the reinforcement tube is half the thickness of the mounting section (Gesmer, the plurality of cross braces 38, 40, and midbrace 36 are thinner as seen in figures 1-3, In Gardner v. TEC Syst discloses 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).
Regarding claim 14, Zhou in combination with Gesmer and Svensson, Zhou discloses characterized in that: in the length direction of the vertical plate, the front and rear ends of the vertical plate exceed the supporting portion (side plates 302 exceed the supporting portion as seen in attached figure above and figures 9-12), and the front and rear ends of the vertical plate are cut from bottom to top toward the center (side plates 302, figs.9-12).
Regarding claim 15, Zhou in combination with Gesmer and Svensson, Zhou discloses supporting part and the vertical plate are integrally formed (plate 302 and supporting part are fixed and necessary to make a whole complete wheel frame 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10-12 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.
Claim 8 depends upon claim 7 which is rejected, but claim 8 has the limitation of “characterized in that: the anti-torsion part comprises two support plates branched upward, both of which are fixedly connected to the support part; the two support plates are respectively an outer support plate connected to the end of the support part and an inner support plate connected to the bottom of the support part; the outer support plate is inclined outward; the inner support plate is inclined inward; the outer support plate, the inner support plate and the supporting part jointly form a triangular tubular body.” The teaching reference of Svensson (US 5752708 A) discloses a plurality of cross braces 38, 40, and midbrace 36 that form the reinforcing tube and the anti-torsion part, figs.1-7. Svensson fails to disclose the outer support plate is inclined outward. Modifying Svensson would be modifying a modifying reference and would be unreasonable. The prior art either alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest at this time all of the limitations of claim 8. For the reasons above claim 8 has allowable subject matter.
Claim 10 depends upon claim 7 which is rejected but claim 10 has the limitation of “characterized in that: the reinforcing tube includes an inner plate and an outer plate with an included angle, the outer plate is located outside of the inner plate and is fixedly connected to the inner plate; the outer plate is provided with a weight-reducing opening.” The teaching reference of Svensson (US 5752708 A) discloses a plurality of cross braces 38, 40, and midbrace 36 that form the reinforcing tube and the anti-torsion part, figs.1-7. Svensson fails to disclose an outer plate with a weight reducing opening and the outer plate being at an angle. Modifying Svensson would be modifying a modifying reference and would be unreasonable. The prior art either alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest at this time all of the limitations of claim 10. For the reasons above claim 10 has allowable subject matter.
Claims 11-12 depend upon claim 10 giving them the same allowable subject matter as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)-297-4337. 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights