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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 15, “the pair of claw portion” should be changed to –each of the claw portions-- as it is describing one claw portion at a time.
In claim 1, lines 18-19, “the circumferential second surface of the pair of claw portions” should be changed to –the circumferential second surfaces of each of the claw portions-- for clarity.
In claim 1, lines 22-23, “a ball bearing” should be changed to –the ball bearing—as it was previously recited in claim 1, line 1.
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.
Claims 1-3 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.
In claim 1, the clause “the upper surface of the connection portion is positioned on one side in the axial direction with respect to a bottom portion of the pocket and the upper surface of the connection portion is positioned on the other side in the axial direction with respect to a center of the crown cage for a ball bearing in the axial direction” is unclear as how can the upper surface of the connection portion be on one side in the axial direction with respect to the bottom portion of the pocket and then be on the other side in the axial direction with respect to the center of the crown cage for a ball bearing in the axial direction? Where is the frame of reference for the other side? Does this mean the upper surface of the connection portion can be on either side of the center of the crown cage? As best understood, it seems like it can be on either side of center of the crown cage.
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyer (US 20100046875 A1) in view of Tanaka (JP 2007327514 A).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Doyer discloses (in figs. 1-2, 4 and annotated fig. 3) a crown cage (4) for a ball bearing (fig. 1) comprising:
an annular main portion (7);
a plurality of pillar portions (8) protruding in an axial direction at predetermined intervals in a circumferential direction from the main portion (7);
and a pocket (9) formed between the adjacent pillar portions (8) and having a spherical concave surface having a spherical shape capable of holding a ball (3),
wherein the pillar portion (8) includes a pair of claw portions (11) having tip end portions (tips of 11) arranged at intervals therebetween and a connection portion (12) connecting the pair of claw portions (11),
and a distance from an outer circumferential surface of the pocket (9) to a center of the crown cage (4) for a ball bearing (fig. 1) is larger than a distance from an outer circumferential surface of the pillar portion (8) to the center (in fig. 3, it can be seen that the base part 7 of pocket 9 has a larger distance than the pillar 8),
the pair of claw portions (11) includes a circumferential first surface (CFS) of a spherical shape constituting the pocket (9) and a circumferential second surface (CSS) opposite the circumferential first surface (CFS),
the connection portion (12) includes an upper surface (12US) connecting the circumferential second surface (CSS) of the pair of claw portions (11),
and the upper surface (12US) of the connection portion (12) is positioned on one side in the axial direction with respect to a bottom portion (BP) of the pocket (9) and the upper surface (12US) of the connection portion (12) is positioned on the other side in the axial direction with respect to a center (Cx) of the crown cage (4) for a ball bearing in the axial direction (the upper surface 12US is on side oppose of the bottom portion and it is on one side of the center of the crown cage).
Doyer does not disclose an inlet portion having a width shorter than a diameter of the ball and for inserting the ball is provided between the tip end portions of the two adjacent claw portions constituting the pocket.
Tanaka teaches (in fig. 4) an inlet portion (space between 16a and 16b) having a width (W) shorter than a diameter (Da) of the ball (14) and for inserting the ball (14) is provided between the tip end portions (ends of 16a and 16b) of the two adjacent claw portions (para. [0030]) constituting the pocket for the purpose of keeping the balls (14) in the pocket (12, para. [0031]).
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 inlet portion, as taught by Tanaka, in the crown cage of Doyer for the purpose of keeping the balls in the pocket (para. [0031]).
PNG
media_image1.png
353
363
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Doyer in view of Tanaka teaches (in Doyer fig. 1) a ball bearing (fig. 1) comprising: an outer ring (1); an inner ring (2); a plurality of the balls (3) arranged between the outer ring (1) and the inner ring (2); and the crown cage (4) for a ball bearing (fig. 1) according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyer (US 20100046875 A1) in view of Tanaka (JP 2007327514 A) and in further view of Kikuchi (JP 2004084770 A).
Regarding claim 2, Doyer in view of Tanaka teaches (in fig. 3) the crown cage for a ball bearing according to claim 1, a convex portion (13) is provided on a bottom surface of the main portion (7), and at least a portion of the convex portion (13) overlaps the pocket (10) in the circumferential direction and a radial direction.
Doyer in view of Tanaka does not teach the convex portion protruding in the axial direction.
Kikuchi teaches (in figs. 1 and 2) a convex portion (16) protruding in the axial direction is provided on a bottom surface of the main portion (14) for the purpose of ensuring the strength of the pocket when it is subjected to load (para. [0021]).
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 convex portion protrude in the axial direction, as taught by Kikuchi, in the crown cage of Doyer in view of Tanaka for the purpose of ensuring the strength of the pocket when it is subjected to load (para. [0021]).
Response to Arguments
With regards to the drawing objections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks on pages 5-6, does not mirror the amended language used in the claim. The applicant seems to be arguing that the connection portion needs to be above a bottom portion of the pocket but also below a center of the cage in the axial direction but the use of “the one side of the axial direction” and “the other side in the axial direction” creates an unclear frame of reference as discussed in the 112(b) rejection. It is also unclear how the new limitation would overcome the current prior art with the connection portion being higher than the one-half the height of the cage as it not clear in the new amendment. The amended limitation also does not seem to prove the effect of reducing the weight of the pillar portion 30 and suppressing the mass of the pillar portion 30.
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