DEEP GROOVE BALL BEARING

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 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 1-6, 11-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui JP 2006-77950 in view of Nakayama JP 2016-191474. Re clm 1, Matsui discloses a deep groove ball bearing ([0014]) comprising: an outer ring (2) having an outer ring raceway (2a), the outer ring raceway defines an outer ring raceway radius, two edges of the outer ring raceway in an axial direction defining an outer ring raceway limiting angle relative to a center of an arc of the outer ring raceway, an inner ring (3) having an inner ring raceway (3a), the inner ring raceway defines an inner ring raceway radius (R, Fig. 2), two edges of the inner ring raceway in the axial direction defining an inner ring raceway limiting angle relative to a center of an arc of the inner ring raceway, a range of the inner ring raceway limiting angle being 72°~99° (53% ratio and 18.5% H gives an angle of 98.8° based on circle geometry of chords and trigonometry ; [0007]); a plurality of balls arranged between the outer ring and the inner ring; and a cage (5) for holding the balls, and wherein a ratio of the inner ring raceway radius to the diameter of the balls defines a second ratio, a range of the second ratio being 0.510~0.530 (.53 is 53%; [0007]), wherein the center of the arc of the inner ring raceway is spaced apart from the ball center of each ball of the plurality of balls. Matsui is silent as to the geometry of the outer raceway and does not disclose the range of the outer ring raceway limiting angle being 66°~97°; wherein a ratio of the outer ring raceway radius to a diameter of the balls defines a first ratio, a range of the first ratio being 0.525~0.570, the center of the arc of the inner ring raceway is spaced apart from the ball center of each ball of the plurality of balls. Nakayama teaches a ball bearing comprising the range of the outer ring raceway limiting angle being 66°~97° (57% ratio and H that is 18% of the ball diameter gives an angle of 93.7° based on circle geometry of chords and trigonometry; lines 117-121 and 131-135); wherein a ratio of the outer ring raceway radius to a diameter of the balls defines a first ratio, a range of the first ratio being 0.525~0.570 (57%; lines 117-121), the center of the arc of the inner ring raceway is spaced apart from the ball center of each ball of the plurality of balls for the purpose of reducing noise and vibration (lines 88-96). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Matsui and provide the range of the outer ring raceway limiting angle being 66°~97°; wherein a ratio of the outer ring raceway radius to a diameter of the balls defines a first ratio, a range of the first ratio being 0.525~0.570, the center of the arc of the inner ring raceway is spaced apart from the ball center of each ball of the plurality of balls for the purpose of reducing noise and vibration. Re clm 2, although Matsui and Nakayama both teach that the ratio of the radius of the raceway to the ball diameter and the limiting angle (another way to define the depth H based on cord geometry of a circle) as result effective variables ([0006]-[0007] of Matsui; lines 88-96 and 131-135 of Nakayama), Matsui in view of Nakayama does not disclose the range of the first ratio is 0.530~0.565, the range of the second ratio is 0.515~0.530, the range of the outer ring raceway limiting angle is 69°~94°, and the range of the inner ring raceway limiting angle is 76°~96°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsui and Nakayama and provide the range of the first ratio is 0.530~0.565, the range of the second ratio is 0.515~0.530, the range of the outer ring raceway limiting angle is 69°~94°, and the range of the inner ring raceway limiting angle is 76°~96°, 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 3, although Matsui and Nakayama both teach that the ratio of the radius of the raceway to the ball diameter and the limiting angle (another way to define the depth H based on cord geometry of a circle and trigonometry) are result effective variables ([0006]-[0007] of Matsui; lines 88-96 and 131-135 of Nakayama), Matsui in view of Nakayama does not disclose the range of the first ratio is 0.535~0.560, the range of the second ratio is 0.520~0.530, the range of the outer ring raceway limiting angle is 72°~84°, and the range of the inner ring raceway limiting angle is 80°~92°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsui and Nakayama and provide the range of the first ratio is 0.535~0.560, the range of the second ratio is 0.520~0.530, the range of the outer ring raceway limiting angle is 72°~84°, and the range of the inner ring raceway limiting angle is 80°~92°, 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 4 and 11, both Matsui and Nakayama further disclose the deep groove ball bearing comprises lubricating grease ([0005] of Matsui; lines 156-157 of Nakayama). Re clm 5 and 12, the improvement of Nakayama further discloses the viscosity of the lubricating grease is less than 40 mm2/s at 40°C (lines 156-157 of Nakayama). Re clm 6 and 13, the improvement of Nakayama further discloses the viscosity of the lubricating grease is less than 30 mm2/s at 40°C (lines 156-157). Re clm 18 and 20, the improvement of Nakayama further discloses the center of the arc of the outer ring raceway is spaced radially inward of the ball center of each ball of the plurality of balls (shown in 2; since the surface of the ball touches the bottom of the groove and they have different radii, it is impossible of them not to be spaced apart). Re clm 19, Matsui further discloses the center of the arc of the inner ring raceway is spaced radially outward of the ball center of each ball of the plurality of balls (shown in 2; since the surface of the ball touches the bottom of the groove and they have different radii, it is impossible of them not to be spaced apart). Claims 7-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui JP 2006-77950 in view of Nakayama JP 2016-191474 as applied to claim 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Kanazawa WO 2022/230730. Matsui in view of Nakayama discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above. Re clm 7 and 14, Matsui is silent as to the material of the cage and does not disclose the cage is made of a polymer. Kanazawa discloses a bearing comprising a cage (Fig. 4). Kanazawa teaches making cages out of polymers such as phenolic resin or nylon (lines 20-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the unknown material of Matsui with that of a polymer as taught by Kanazawa, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07. Re clm 8 and 15, the improvement of Kanazawa further discloses the cage is a nylon plastic cage (line 22). Re clm 9 and 16, the improvement of Kanazawa further discloses the cage comprises a material capable of absorbing lubricating oil or grease (phenolic resin; line 23). Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui JP 2006-77950 in view of Nakayama JP 2016-191474 as applied to claim 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Daniel DE 102019114939. Matsui in view of Nakayama discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above. Re clm 10 and 17, Matsui does not disclose the cage is provided with an opening or pore for storing lubricating oil or grease. Daniel teaches a bearing cage comprising pores for storing lubricant and passing the lubricant to the pockets ([0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Matsui and provide the cage is provided with an opening or pore for storing lubricating oil or grease for the purpose of storing lubricant and passing the lubricant to the pockets. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 14 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the office action has not been made explicit since the math has not been shown. The chord geometry of circles is a well-known function. Even so, the examiner has provided the mathematical work to show how the angles are calculated based on basic circle chord geometry. Figure 2 of Nakayama below is shown with annotated lines formed of a grey circle with a radius R which corresponds to the radius of the groove. H is the depth of the groove. The triangle shown connects the origin of the radius of the groove to the two furthest points on the groove. The vertical line bisects the triangle into two mirrored triangles and passes through the lowest point of the groove. The height of the two mirrored triangles is the value R-H. PNG media_image1.png 582 671 media_image1.png Greyscale The important geometry of the circle formed by the groove has been retained and reproduced in the figure below, while the ball has been removed for clarity. Point O below is the center of the circle formed by the groove and not the ball. PNG media_image2.png 526 501 media_image2.png Greyscale Based on one of the mirrored triangles above, we can use the definition of cosine to write: cos ⁡ θ 2 =   a d j a c e n t h y p o t e n u s e = R - H R We can solve for θ to obtain: θ = 2 * cos - 1 ⁡ R - H R This formula will work for either the inner or the outer ring with a groove of radius R. For the Inner Ring: Based on paragraph [0007], Matsui discloses a relationship between R and D which is: 0 . 51 ≤ R D ≤ 0 . 53 → 0 . 51 * D ≤ R ≤ 0 . 53 * D Thus, we can choose R = 0.53*D. Based on Paragraph [0007], Matsui discloses a relationship between H and D which is: 0.18 5 ≤ H D ≤ 0.2 1 → 0.18 5 * D ≤ H ≤ 0.2 1 * D Thus, we can choose H = 0.185*D. If we plug in the value of R and H that have been chosen into the formula for theta derived above, we get: θ = 2 * cos - 1 ⁡ R - H R → 2 * cos - 1 ⁡ 0.5 3 * D - 0.18 5 * D 0.5 3 * D → 2 * cos - 1 ⁡ 0 . 6509 → 98.77 ° For the Outer Ring: Based on lines 117-121, Nakayama discloses a relationship between R and D which is: 0.556 ≤ R D ≤ 0.60 → 0.556 * D ≤ R ≤ 0.60 * D Thus, we can choose R = 0.57*D. Based on lines 131-135, Nakayama discloses a relationship between H and D which is: 0.18 ≤ H D ≤ 0.20 → 0.18 * D ≤ H ≤ 0.20 * D Thus, we can choose H = 0.18*D. If we plug in the value of R and H that have been chosen into the formula for theta derived above, we get: θ = 2 * cos - 1 ⁡ R - H R → 2 * cos - 1 ⁡ 0.57 * D - 0.18 * D 0.57 * D → 2 * cos - 1 ⁡ 0.6842 → 93.65° Applicant argues that “the Office may have assumed the centers of arcs of the inner and outer ring raceways are coincident with the ball center of each ball”. This is incorrect. Firstly, since the ball radius and the groove radius are not equal and the ball and the bottom of the groove must be coincident, the centers of the grooves and the center of the ball cannot be coincident. Secondly, the geometric relationship for θ is based on the circle formed by the groove alone. The ball and the diameter thereof is irrelevant to the equation of θ derived above. Still further, both Matsui and Nakayama show the radius and the diameter centers are not coincident. The ball diameter is only introduced due to the explicit statements of Matsui and Nakayama which relate the groove radius R as a proportion of the diameter D of the ball and the groove depth H as a proportion of the diameter D of the ball. Based on these relationships, the ball diameter D cancels out in the equation for θ as shown above. Based on the above, the rejection of the claims is maintained. 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 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