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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “resin cage is injection-molded using a radial draw mold” (claim 8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claims 2 – 5 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.
Claims 2 and 5, the limitation “on a phase of all the column portions with respect to a perfect circle” is indefinite, as it lacks clear metes and bounds and does not reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill whether the claimed convex portions are centered on, aligned with, or merely located somewhere corresponding to the column portions.
Claims 3 is rejected based on its dependence to claim 2.
Claim 4, which depends from claim 2, which recites: “the guide surface is formed by an outer circumferential surface of the annular portion having an outer diameter equal to an outer circumferential surface of the column portion.” It is unclear from the claim language how the guide surface can simultaneously (1) have an uneven circular shape including convex portions protruding radially outward as required by claim 2, while (2) being formed by an outer circumferential surface of the annular portion having an outer diameter equal to the outer circumferential surface of the column portion as recited in claim 4. The claim does not clearly identify the structure that constitutes the recited convex portions, nor does it explain how such convex portions are produced by the geometry recited in claim 4. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed guide surface, and it is therefore unclear.
Claim 4 would be proper if amended to depend from claim 1. For the purposes of examination, claim 4 will be treated on the merits, accordingly.
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 – 3 and 5 – 8, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizaki et al. JP 2020046069 (incl. machine translation) in view of Toda et al. JP 2008175329 (incl. machine translation).
Claim 1, Ishizaki discloses a resin cage (crown shaped cage 1)(Fig. 1)([0042], l. 3) for a ball bearing (see Fig. 2), the resin cage comprising: at least one annular portion 1A (see annotated Fig. 1); and a plurality of column portions 1B each extending from the annular portion in an axial direction and provided at equal intervals in a circumferential direction, wherein the resin cage for the ball bearing can rotatably hold balls 3([0042], l. 6) of the ball bearing in pockets 4 ([0042], l. 5) formed between adjacent column portions, gate marks (gate portions A) are provided on inner circumferential surfaces of all of the column portions, and the gate marks are circumferentially displaced from a circumferential center position of the column portions.
PNG
media_image1.png
534
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ishizaki does not expressly disclose the annular portion having a guide surface that is guided by an inner circumferential surface of an outer ring or an outer circumferential surface of an inner ring of the ball bearing.
Toda teaches that it was known for a similar cage device (cage 5)(Fig. 1)([0025], l. 2) to have a guide surface (first convex portion or protrusion 41)([0029], ll. 1 – 3) that is guided by an inner circumferential surface of an outer ring 1 ([0026], l. 4) or an outer circumferential surface of an inner ring 2 ([0026], l. 4) of the ball bearing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide cage annular portion of Ishizaki with the guide surface of Toda, in order to maintain cage concentricity, thereby preventing uneven pocket loading that would otherwise lead ball to pocket impact and wear.
Claim 2, the modification of Toda discloses the guide surface 31 being guided by an inner circumferential surface of the outer ring, and the guide surface has an uneven circular shape having convex portions protruding radially outward on a phase of all the column portions with respect to a perfect circle (see Fig. 2 and 3).
Claim 3, the modification of Toda discloses the guide surface 31 being formed by an outer circumferential surface of the annular portion having a larger outer diameter than an outer circumferential surface of the column portion.
Claim 5, Ishizaki as modified by Toda discloses all of the limitations of claim 5, except for the guide surface being guided by an outer circumferential surface of the inner ring, and the guide surface has an uneven circular shape having convex portions protruding radially inward on a phase of all the column portions with respect to a perfect circle. Ishizaki as modified by Toda discloses the guide surface being guided by an inner circumferential surface of the outer ring, wherein the guide surface has an uneven circular shape having convex portions protruding radially outward on a phase of all the column portions with respect to a perfect circle.
However, as the applicant is silent to any criticality or unexpected results arriving from the guide surface being guided by an outer circumferential surface of the inner ring, wherein the guide surface has an uneven circular shape having convex portions protruding radially inward on a phase of all the column portions with respect to a perfect circle, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided such an arrangement with Ishizaki as modified by Toda having the guide surface being guided by an outer circumferential surface of the inner ring, wherein the guide surface has an uneven circular shape having convex portions protruding radially inward on a phase of all the column portions with respect to a perfect circle, and since it appears that the prior art would perform perfectly well with the guide surface being guided by an outer circumferential surface of the inner ring, wherein the guide surface has an uneven circular shape having convex portions protruding radially inward on a phase of all the column portions with respect to a perfect circle. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400.
Claim 6, Ishizaki discloses the resin cage as a crown type cage ([0042], l. 3) or a double ring type cage having a pair of annular portions.
Claim 7, Ishizaki discloses a ball bearing (see annotate Fig. 2) comprising: an outer ring 11 with an outer ring raceway groove 11a formed on an inner circumferential surface; an inner ring 12 with an inner ring raceway groove 12a formed on an outer circumferential surface; a plurality of balls 3 rotatably disposed between the outer ring raceway groove and the inner ring raceway groove; and the resin cage for the ball bearing, wherein the gate mark A is provided within a range where the inner raceway groove is formed in an axial direction, or within a range where the inner raceway groove and a counterbore of the inner ring are formed.
PNG
media_image2.png
449
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 8, Ishizaki discloses a method for manufacturing a resin cage 1 for a rolling bearing (Fig. 2), the resin cage comprising at least one annular portion 1A, and a plurality of column portions 1B each extending from the annular portion 1A in an axial direction and provided at equal intervals in a circumferential direction, wherein the resin cage for the ball bearing can rotatably hold balls 3 of the ball bearing in pockets 4 formed between adjacent column portions 1B, the resin cage 1 is injection-molded using a radial draw mold ([0043], ll. 4 – 5: “gate sections A, B, and C are traces of the gates into which molten resin flows during injection molding”), gates A are provided on the inner circumferential surface of all the column portions 1B, and the gates are circumferentially displaced from a circumferential center position of the column portion 1B.
Ishizaki does not expressly disclose the annular portion having a guide surface that is guided by an inner circumferential surface of an outer ring or an outer circumferential surface of an inner ring of the ball bearing.
Toda teaches that it was known for a similar cage device (cage 5)(Fig. 1)([0025], l. 2) to have a guide surface (first convex portion or protrusion 41)([0029], ll. 1 – 3) that is guided by an inner circumferential surface of an outer ring 1 ([0026], l. 4) or an outer circumferential surface of an inner ring 2 ([0026], l. 4) of the ball bearing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide cage annular portion of Ishizaki with the guide surface of Toda, in order to maintain cage concentricity, thereby preventing uneven pocket loading that would otherwise lead ball to pocket impact and wear.
Claim(s) 4, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizaki et al. JP 2020046069 (incl. machine translation) in view of Toda et al. JP 2008175329 (incl. machine translation) as applied to claim above, and further in view of Uchida JP 2014101946 (incl. machine translation).
Claim 4, Ishizaki as modified by Toda discloses all of the limitations of claim 4, except for the guide surface being formed by an outer circumferential surface of the annular portion having an outer diameter equal to an outer circumferential surface of the column portion, and a U-shaped groove in which a parting line extends along the axial direction is formed on the outer circumferential surface of the annular portion and the column portion at a circumferentially intermediate position between the adjacent pockets.
Uchida teaches that it was known to for a similar cage device (retainer or cage 4)(Fig. 4)([0013], l. 5) to have a guide surface ([0016], ll. 3 – 6: “the outer circumferential surface of the retainer 4 faces the inner circumferential surface of the outer ring 2, which is the retainer guide surface that guides the retainer 4, and forms the guided surface that is guided by the inner circumferential surface of the outer ring 2”) formed by an outer circumferential surface of an annular portion having an outer diameter equal to an outer circumferential surface of the column portion 4b ([0016], ll. 7 – 8), and a U-shaped groove (recess 10)([0016], l. 2) in which a parting line 12 ([0018], l. 4) extends along the axial direction is formed on the outer circumferential surface of the annular portion and the column portion at a circumferentially intermediate position between the adjacent pockets 4a ([0014], l. 7), in order to prevent wear to the inner surface of the outer ring ([0006], ll. 1 – 5: “[b]ecause the parting line has a ‘burr’ that protrudes radially from the cage, if a cage with a ‘burr’ is assembled into a rolling bearing, the parting line may come into sliding contact with the cage guide surface, such as the inner surface of the outer ring, which can cause wear on the inner surface of the outer ring or torque fluctuations, potentially leading to malfunction of the rolling bearing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cage device of Ishizaki as modified by Toda, such that the guide surface is formed by an outer circumferential surface of the annular portion having an outer diameter equal to an outer circumferential surface of the column portion, and a U-shaped groove in which a parting line extends along the axial direction is formed on the outer circumferential surface of the annular portion and the column portion at a circumferentially intermediate position between the adjacent pockets, as taught by [A], for the purpose of preventing wear to the inner surface of the outer ring.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5216. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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.
/PHILLIP A JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights