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
Applicant is advised that should claims 1, 3, 6 and 9 be found allowable, claims 2, 7, 8 and 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 4-6 and 8-12 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 4 and 5 recites “a carbon steel for machine structure” and “a carbon steel for cold heading”. The limitations are unclear since the claim is attempting to define the carbon steel by its use instead of its physical or metallurgical properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know which carbon steels satisfy the claims and which do not.
Claims 6 and 8-12 recite “the tapered surface comprising a smooth surface”. It is unclear what structure is intended by the term “smooth”. For example, does ‘smooth’ mean continuous, flat or having a specific roughness value?
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 recites the equation of a cylinder portion of the shaft using Vo as the volume of the cylindrical portion which provided in interiors of the rivet holes of the first and second member. Claim 2 recites T x 2π r2. This is the same as Vo. Therefore, claim 2 does not further limit claim 1 since it is the same equation expressed in a different way
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utsunomiya JP 2016-118228.
Re clm 1 and 2, Utsunomiya discloses a ball bearing (Fig. 3) comprising: an inner ring (2); an outer ring (3) arranged radially outward of, and coaxially with, the inner ring; a plurality of balls (4) disposed between the inner ring and the outer ring; and a wave-shaped iron plate cage (steel; [0022]) retaining the balls, wherein the wave-shaped ion plage cage includes: a first annular member (left 5) formed of a steel plate; a second annular member (right 5) formed of a steel plate, and axially opposed to the first annular member; and a plurality of rivets (10) coupling the first annular member and the second annular member together, wherein the first annular member includes: first pocket wall portions (6, Fig. 4) for receiving the respective balls; and first flat plate portions (7) that have respective first rivet holes (8) axially extending through the first annular member, and that circumferentially alternate with the first pocket wall portions, wherein the second annular member includes: second pocket wall portions (6) for receiving the respective balls; and second flat plate portions (7) that have respective second rivet holes (8) axially extending through the second annular member, and that circumferentially alternate with the second pocket wall portions, and wherein each of the rivets includes: a columnar rivet shaft (at 10, Fig. 3) inserted through one of the first rivet holes and a corresponding one of the second rivet holes; a pre-formed head (60, Fig. 8 and 9) formed at one end of the rivet shaft and axially engaging with one of the first flat plate portions; and a crimped head (62, Fig. 9) formed at the other end of the rivet shaft, and axially engaging with one of the second plate portions.
Although Utsunomiya discloses the volume of the crimped head is a result effective variable for providing sufficient bonding strength ([0042]), Utsunomiya does not disclose the 1.25 x Vo < V < 2.43 x Vo, where V is a volume of the crimped head, and Vo is a volume of a portion of the rivet shaft in interiors of the one of the first rivet holes and the corresponding one of the second rivet holes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Utsunomiya and provide 1.25 x Vo < V < 2.43 x Vo where V is a volume of the crimped head, and Vo is a volume of a portion of the rivet shaft in interiors of the one of the first rivet holes and the corresponding one of the second rivet holes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Re clm 2, the volume of a cylinder is 2π r2 h. The height (h) for the cylinderical part of the rivet has been set as T. Substituting in the volume equation of a cylinder for Vo and T for the height of the cylinder, the equation of claim 2 is exactly the same as the equation of claim 1.
Claims 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utsunomiya JP 2016-118228 as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Itagaki U.S. 2016/0298684.
Utsunomiya discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 3 and 7, Utsunomiya does not disclose nitrided layers are formed on a surface of the first annular member and a surface of the second annular member, respectively,wherein the nitrided layer of the second annular member is formed on an entire inner periphery of each of the second rivet holes, and wherein an inner periphery of each of the first rivet holes has a non-nitrided surface that is not formed with the nitrided layer of the first annular member.
Itagaki teaches nitrided layers are formed on a surface of the first annular member and a surface of the second annular member (8s; [0007]), respectively, wherein the nitrided layer of the second annular member is formed on an entire inner periphery of each of the second rivet holes (since the one of the halves 8 is nitrided alone as a single piece), and wherein an inner periphery of each of the first rivet holes has a non-nitrided surface that is not formed with the nitrided layer of the first annular member (since the other half 8 is nitrided with the rivets 9 in place) for the purpose of sufficiently securing the durability of the cage without increasing the size thereof ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Utsunomiya and provide nitrided layers are formed on a surface of the first annular member and a surface of the second annular member, respectively, wherein the nitrided layer of the second annular member is formed on an entire inner periphery of each of the second rivet holes, and wherein an inner periphery of each of the first rivet holes has a non-nitrided surface that is not formed with the nitrided layer of the first annular member for the purpose of sufficiently securing the durability of the cage without increasing the size thereof.
Re clm 4, Utsunomiya further discloses the first annular member and the second annular member are formed of steel.
Utsunomiya does not disclose the elements are formed of one of a carbon steel for machine structure, a carbon steel for cold heading and a stainless steel.
Itagaki teaches the first annular member and the second annular member being formed of stainless steel ([0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Utsunomiya and provide the first annular member and the second annular member being formed of stainless steel, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Re clm 5, Utsunomiya does not disclose the rivets are formed of one of a carbon steel for machine structure, a carbon steel for cold heading and a stainless steel.
Itagaki teaches the rivets are formed of stainless steel ([0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Utsunomiya and provide the rivets are formed of stainless steel, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Re clm 6 and 8-12, Utsunomiya further discloses the inner periphery of each of the first rivet holes is constituted by: a cylindrical shear surface having a constant inner diameter that does not axially change (Fig. 8 and 9).
Utsunomiya does not disclose the inner periphery of each of the first rivet holes is constituted by: the cylindrical shear surface having a constant inner diameter that does not axially change; and a tapered surface radially expanding from the shear surface toward a corresponding one of abutment surfaces of the first flat plate portions against the respective second flat plate portions, the tapered surface comprising a smooth surface formed by cutting.
Itagaki teaches a rivet hole geometry in which the inner periphery of each of the first rivet holes is constituted by: the cylindrical shear surface (28, Fig. 6) having a constant inner diameter that does not axially change; and a tapered surface (29a) radially expanding from the shear surface toward a corresponding one of abutment surfaces of the first flat plate portions against the respective second flat plate portions for the purpose of ensuring a nitriding layer is fomred on a portion of the through hole thus realizing excellent cage durability ([0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Utsunomiya and provide the inner periphery of each of the first rivet holes is constituted by: the cylindrical shear surface having a constant inner diameter that does not axially change; and a tapered surface radially expanding from the shear surface toward a corresponding one of abutment surfaces of the first flat plate portions against the respective second flat plate portions for the purpose of ensuring a nitriding layer is fomred on a portion of the through hole thus realizing excellent cage durability.
The tapered surface 29a is shown as smooth (flat) in Fig. 6.
The limitation “the tapered surface is formed by cutting” is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2113.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN B WAITS whose telephone number is (571)270-3664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6-4 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 R 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.
/ALAN B WAITS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617