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 9 and 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9 and 16, line 2, “connected a” should be - -a connected- -.
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 4-6 and 11-17 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.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, both claims state “a number of the plurality of balls and the ball diameter each being selected to provide a value of the pitch diameter which satisfies” the equations defined by the claim. However, none of the equations use the number of balls as a parameter. If the number of balls is being selected to satisfy the equation what number of balls does this correlate to or how is the number of balls determined? The recitation is also suggestive that a pitch circle diameter is selected based on the equations, however none of the equations define a pitch circle diameter but rather the pitch circle diameter is a variable in the suitability factor (X) equation. If the variable is a part of the equation to define X how is the pitch circle being calculated? Based on the equations taken collectively these are not equations used to find a particular, ideal, variable or feature but rather X is bound by a range of LL and UL and X is a value that is calculated using already set values for the bearing and thus these equations are actually used to classify a particular bearing as being satisfactory for the purpose or not. Because of this the equations appear to be non-limiting relative to the actual bearing structure or feature and are ultimately arbitrary equations that Applicant has developed to define or classify a particular bearing, because of this these equations are not structurally limiting as presented and do not further limit the claimed invention as best understood.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claims are and what structure is actually being set forth. First, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the load” in line 2 and thus it is unclear what load this would be in reference to and the load for a bearing assembly is arbitrary based on the bearings use, without knowing the load it is unclear how this recitation would be limiting the claim to any particular number of balls. It appears that this recitation might be attempting to define how the number of balls is calculated, this would not structurally limit the claimed invention. Second, it is unclear how the circumference can be determined by multiplying the number of balls by the diameter when claim 1 requires the presences of a cage. This recitation of the claim would only apply to full complement bearings where all free space is filled by a ball, this cannot apply in cases where a cage is used since the cage also spaces the balls apart increasing the circumference. Third, it is unclear how the last clause is limiting the claim at all. The definition for a circumference is 2*pi*r or in other words pi*2r but 2r is the same as the diameter, it appears that the claim is simply defining how the diameter is calculated in the traditional sense, how is this further limiting the claimed invention? What structure does this limit the claim to?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueno, USP 7,707,983.
Regarding claim 1, Ueno discloses a ball bearing assembly for an electric vehicle, the ball bearing supporting a load applied to a shaft of an electric motor of the vehicle and rotatably coupling the shaft with a housing (intended use), the ball bearing assembly comprising: an inner ring (4) having a centerline (at C), an inner circumferential surface sized to fit upon the shaft of the electric motor (all inner rings of bearings are designed to fit upon a shaft or journal member, what that shaft or journal is a member of does not limit the subject matter of the claim which is “a bearing assembly”), an outer circumferential surface (surface with 6), a first axial end (left side of figure 2), an opposing second axial end (right side in figure 2), and an inner raceway (6) formed in the outer circumferential surface and centered between the first and second axial ends; an outer ring (5) disposed about the inner ring and having an outer circumferential surface (at 5a), an inner circumferential surface (surface with 12), a first axial end (left side), an opposing second axial end (right side) and an outer raceway (12) formed in the inner circumferential surface and centered between the first and second axial ends; a plurality of balls (7) disposed between the inner raceway and the outer raceway; a lubricant source (35/31/33 and supply that connects to these feed lines) configured to direct lubricant into an annular opening defined between the first axial end of the inner ring and the first axial end of the outer ring (33 opens on surface 34 which is on the left side or first end side of the rings); and a bearing cage (13) including an annular base (annular ring on right side of figure 2), a plurality of arms (indicated by the dashed lines in figure 2) extending axially from the annular base and a plurality of pockets each defined between a separate pair of adjacent arms (one pocket per ball), each pocket retaining a separate one of the balls, the annular base of the cage being disposed axially between the plurality of balls and the second axial ends (right side) of the inner and outer rings.
Regarding claim 10, Ueno discloses that the inner raceway and the outer raceway are each formed as a deep groove of a deep groove ball bearing (see column 5, lines 5-6 which discloses the bearing is a deep groove ball bearing).
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manade, US PGPub 2019/0383300.
Regarding claim 1, Manade discloses a ball bearing assembly for an electric vehicle, the ball bearing supporting a load applied to a shaft of an electric motor of the vehicle and rotatably coupling the shaft with a housing (intended use), the ball bearing assembly comprising: an inner ring (82) having a centerline (along the center of the shaft 10), an inner circumferential surface sized to fit upon the shaft of the electric motor (all inner rings of bearings are designed to fit upon a shaft or journal member, what that shaft or journal is a member of does not limit the subject matter of the claim which is “a bearing assembly”), an outer circumferential surface (surface with 821), a first axial end (top side in figure 2), an opposing second axial end (bottom side in figure 2), and an inner raceway (821) formed in the outer circumferential surface and centered between the first and second axial ends; an outer ring (81) disposed about the inner ring and having an outer circumferential surface (contacting 50), an inner circumferential surface (surface with 811), a first axial end (top side), an opposing second axial end (bottom side) and an outer raceway (811) formed in the inner circumferential surface and centered between the first and second axial ends; a plurality of balls (83) disposed between the inner raceway and the outer raceway; a lubricant source (60) configured (via passages 500 and 501 in figure 6b and the pumping structure) to direct lubricant into an annular opening defined between the first axial end of the inner ring and the first axial end of the outer ring (at top side of figure 6b); and a bearing cage (84) including an annular base, a plurality of arms extending axially from the annular base and a plurality of pockets each defined between a separate pair of adjacent arms, each pocket retaining a separate one of the balls (while the details of the cage aren’t shown the size and general shape illustrated in figure 6b indicates that the cage is a comb type cage which is one with the base ring and arms extending between but adjacent balls while the opposite side of the cage is left open or free of an annular base), the annular base of the cage being disposed axially between the plurality of balls and the second axial ends (bottom side) of the inner and outer rings.
Regarding claim 9, Manabe discloses that the lubricant source includes a passage (500/501) formed in the shaft or the housing (in housing 50) and a connected lubricant reservoir (60, via the pumping structure), the passage having an outlet port spaced axially from the first axial ends of the inner and outer rings (the opening of 501 is spaced radially inward and axial adjacent the first end of the outer ring and is spaced from the first end of the inner ring) and configured to direct lubricant into the annular opening between the inner and outer rings (opens in a direction facing the bearing and thus directs lubricant into the bearing).
Regarding claim 10, Manabe discloses that the inner raceway and the outer raceway are each formed as a deep groove of a deep groove ball bearing (the illustrated bearing includes raceway grooves that the ball sits in, this is a deep groove ball bearing, the term “deep groove” is not limited to a particular depth but rather defines a class of bearings that have a groove for the rolling element so that the bearing supports radial and axial load, the bearing illustrated by Manabe does this and is thus a deep groove ball bearing as illustrated).
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) 2-6, 11-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno, USP 7,707,983.
Regarding claims 2-3, Ueno further discloses that each one of the plurality of balls has a ball diameter; the inner ring has an axial length defined between the first and second axial ends of the inner ring, and the outer ring has an axial length defined between the first and second axial ends of the outer ring.
Ueno does not disclose that the inner ring being sized such that a ratio of the axial length of the inner ring and the ball diameter is at least 2.0 [clm 2] or greater than 2.5 [clm 3] and the outer ring being sized such that a ratio of the axial length of the outer ring and the ball diameter is at least 2.0 [clm 2] or greater than 2.5 [clm 3].
However, this recitation is merely defining the axial length of the bearing based on a ratio with the ball diameter, regardless of how the length is defined changing the length of bearing is an obvious matter of design choice in order to make the bearing fit in a particular space, since Applicant has not disclosed that the length solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless of the specific ratio of the length to ball diameter. In addition, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component (the length of the ring). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood and based on the conclusion reached in the rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC 112(b) lines 6-12 of the claim are not structurally limiting and are only reciting equations used to categorize or confirm that a bearing is suitable for the intended function, thus the equations themselves are not limiting. Excluding these equations, Ueno further discloses that an inner ring has an inside diameter, the inside diameter being sized such that the inner ring fits upon the shaft of the electric motor (again electric motor is intended use, all bearings have inner rings with diameters that allow them to fit upon a shaft or journal); the plurality of balls traverse a pitch circle extending about the centerline, the pitch circle having a pitch diameter (all ball bearings have balls that ride along a pitch circle that has a diameter). See citation of pertinent art below.
Regarding claim 11, Ueno discloses a ball bearing assembly for an electric vehicle, the ball bearing supporting a load applied to a shaft of an electric motor of the vehicle and rotatably coupling the shaft with a housing (intended use), the ball bearing assembly comprising: an inner ring (4) having a centerline (at C), an inner circumferential surface sized to fit upon the shaft of the electric motor (all inner rings of bearings are designed to fit upon a shaft or journal member, what that shaft or journal is a member of does not limit the subject matter of the claim which is “a bearing assembly”), an outer circumferential surface (surface with 6), a first axial end (left side of figure 2), an opposing second axial end (right side in figure 2), and an inner raceway (6) formed in the outer circumferential surface and centered between the first and second axial ends; an outer ring (5) disposed about the inner ring and having an outer circumferential surface (at 5a), an inner circumferential surface (surface with 12), a first axial end (left side), an opposing second axial end (right side), an axial length defined between the first and second axial ends of the outer ring, and an outer raceway (12) formed in the inner circumferential surface and centered between the first and second axial ends; a plurality of balls (7) disposed between the inner raceway and the outer raceway, each one of the plurality of balls having a ball diameter and the plurality of balls traversing a pitch circle extending about the centerline, the pitch circle having a pitch diameter (all ball bearings have a pitch circle and a pitch circle diameter); a lubricant source (35/31/33 and supply that connects to these feed lines) configured to direct lubricant into an annular opening defined between the first axial end of the inner ring and the first axial end of the outer ring (33 opens on surface 34 which is on the left side or first end side of the rings); and a bearing cage (13) including an annular base (annular ring on right side of figure 2), a plurality of arms (indicated by the dashed lines in figure 2) extending axially from the annular base and a plurality of pockets each defined between a separate pair of adjacent arms (one pocket per ball), each pocket retaining a separate one of the balls, the annular base of the cage being disposed axially between the plurality of balls and the second axial ends (right side) of the inner and outer rings.
Ueno does not disclose that the inner ring being sized such that a ratio of the axial length of the inner ring and the ball diameter is at least 2.0 and the outer ring being sized such that a ratio of the axial length of the outer ring and the ball diameter is at least 2.0.
However, this recitation is merely defining the axial length of the bearing based on a ratio with the ball diameter, regardless of how the length is defined changing the length of bearing is an obvious matter of design choice in order to make the bearing fit in a particular space, since Applicant has not disclosed that the length solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless of the specific ratio of the length to ball diameter. In addition, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component (the length of the ring). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding the equations, as best understood and based on the conclusion reached in the rejection of claims 4 and 11 under 35 USC 112(b) lines 25-31 of the claim are not structurally limiting and are only reciting equations used to categorize or confirm that a bearing is suitable for the intended function, thus the equations themselves are not limiting. Excluding these equations, Ueno further discloses that an inner ring has an inside diameter, the inside diameter being sized such that the inner ring fits upon the shaft of the electric motor (again electric motor is intended use, all bearings have inner rings with diameters that allow them to fit upon a shaft or journal); the plurality of balls traverse a pitch circle extending about the centerline, the pitch circle having a pitch diameter (all ball bearings have balls that ride along a pitch circle that has a diameter). See citation of pertinent art below.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Ueno does not disclose that each ball is formed of ceramic and the value of the ball diameter is between three millimeters and six millimeters; and the inside diameter of the inner ring has a value between twenty millimeters and sixty millimeters.
With regards to the material, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Ueno and make the balls out of ceramic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regards to the ball diameter and the inside diameter of the inner ring, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a ball diameter range of 3-6mm and an inside diameter of the inner ring value of 20-60mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, selecting specific sizes for the parts does not change the underlying structure or the function of the bearing, diameters of balls and openings of the inner ring are selected based on a number of different design factors such as size of the shaft, thickness of inner ring, space between the inner ring and the outer ring, selecting specific values based on the design constraints for the bearing does not change the function or general purpose of the bearing.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, as best understood, the claim is defining means used to calculate aspects of the bearing without clearly setting forth any specific structure. Using a known load and determining the number of balls needed based on the property (load capacity) of the ball is a method of calculating a feature and not limiting the claim to any particular number of balls, likewise using the ball diameter to determine the pitch circle circumference or dividing that circumference by pi to determine a diameter is not structurally limiting but rather methods used to determine aspects of the bearing. Because of this it is unclear how claim 6 is further structurally limiting the claim and thus as best understood, since the same processes can be carried out in Ueno, the claim is rejected.
Regarding claim 17, Ueno discloses that the inner raceway and the outer raceway are each formed as a deep groove of a deep groove ball bearing (see column 5, lines 5-6 which discloses the bearing is a deep groove ball bearing).
Claim(s) 7-8, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno, USP 7,707,983, as applied to either claims 1 or 11 above, in view of Kasper, DE 3202070.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Ueno does not disclose that at least one of: the inner ring has an annular recessed surface formed at an intersection between the first axial end of the inner ring and the outer circumferential surface of the inner ring; and the outer ring has an annular recessed surface formed at an intersection between the first axial end of the outer ring and the inner circumferential surface of the outer ring.
Kasper teaches providing a bearing ring with an annular recessed surface (3) formed at an intersection between an axial end and the outer circumference of the inner ring in order to direct the lubricant coming in contact with the surface to the free space between the balls in order to properly lubricate the bearing (as suggested by the translated abstract attached).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Ueno and add the known structure of an annular recessed surface between an axial end of the bearing ring and the circumferential bearing surface, as taught by Kasper, for the purpose of directing the lubricant coming in contact with the surface to the free space between the balls in order to properly lubricate the bearing.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Ueno in view of Kasper discloses that each annular recessed surface is one of a chamfer, a fillet and a groove (3 in Kasper is a chamfer, NOTE: the use of each in this case is reference each of the possible two that are present as an opinion in claim 7, “each” in this case is not further limiting the claim to require more than one).
Claim(s) 2-6, 11-13, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabe, US PGPub 2019/0383300.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Manabe further discloses that each one of the plurality of balls has a ball diameter; the inner ring has an axial length defined between the first and second axial ends of the inner ring, and the outer ring has an axial length defined between the first and second axial ends of the outer ring.
Manabe does not disclose that the inner ring being sized such that a ratio of the axial length of the inner ring and the ball diameter is at least 2.0 [clm 2] or greater than 2.5 [clm 3] and the outer ring being sized such that a ratio of the axial length of the outer ring and the ball diameter is at least 2.0 [clm 2] or greater than 2.5 [clm 3].
However, this recitation is merely defining the axial length of the bearing based on a ratio with the ball diameter, regardless of how the length is defined changing the length of bearing is an obvious matter of design choice in order to make the bearing fit in a particular space, since Applicant has not disclosed that the length solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless of the specific ratio of the length to ball diameter. In addition, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component (the length of the ring). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood and based on the conclusion reached in the rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC 112(b) lines 6-12 of the claim are not structurally limiting and are only reciting equations used to categorize or confirm that a bearing is suitable for the intended function, thus the equations themselves are not limiting. Excluding these equations, Manabe further discloses that an inner ring has an inside diameter, the inside diameter being sized such that the inner ring fits upon the shaft of the electric motor (again electric motor is intended use, all bearings have inner rings with diameters that allow them to fit upon a shaft or journal); the plurality of balls traverse a pitch circle extending about the centerline, the pitch circle having a pitch diameter (all ball bearings have balls that ride along a pitch circle that has a diameter). See citation of pertinent art below.
Regarding claim 11, Manabe discloses a ball bearing assembly for an electric vehicle, the ball bearing supporting a load applied to a shaft of an electric motor of the vehicle and rotatably coupling the shaft with a housing (intended use), the ball bearing assembly comprising: an inner ring (82) having a centerline, an inner circumferential surface sized to fit upon the shaft of the electric motor (all inner rings of bearings are designed to fit upon a shaft or journal member, what that shaft or journal is a member of does not limit the subject matter of the claim which is “a bearing assembly”), an outer circumferential surface (surface with 821), a first axial end (top side in figure 2), an opposing second axial end (bottom side in figure 2), and an inner raceway (821 formed in the outer circumferential surface and centered between the first and second axial ends; an outer ring (81) disposed about the inner ring and having an outer circumferential surface (surface contacting 50), an inner circumferential surface (surface with 811), a first axial end (top side), an opposing second axial end (bottom side), an axial length defined between the first and second axial ends of the outer ring, and an outer raceway (811) formed in the inner circumferential surface and centered between the first and second axial ends; a plurality of balls (83) disposed between the inner raceway and the outer raceway, each one of the plurality of balls having a ball diameter and the plurality of balls traversing a pitch circle extending about the centerline, the pitch circle having a pitch diameter (all ball bearings have a pitch circle and a pitch circle diameter); a lubricant source (60 and all feed lines) configured to direct lubricant into an annular opening defined between the first axial end of the inner ring and the first axial end of the outer ring (501 opens on the first axial end of the bearing); and a bearing cage (84, see explanation in the rejection of claim 1 above) including an annular base, a plurality of arms extending axially from the annular base and a plurality of pockets each defined between a separate pair of adjacent arms, each pocket retaining a separate one of the balls, the annular base of the cage being disposed axially between the plurality of balls and the second axial ends of the inner and outer rings.
Manabe does not disclose that the inner ring being sized such that a ratio of the axial length of the inner ring and the ball diameter is at least 2.0 and the outer ring being sized such that a ratio of the axial length of the outer ring and the ball diameter is at least 2.0.
However, this recitation is merely defining the axial length of the bearing based on a ratio with the ball diameter, regardless of how the length is defined changing the length of bearing is an obvious matter of design choice in order to make the bearing fit in a particular space, since Applicant has not disclosed that the length solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless of the specific ratio of the length to ball diameter. In addition, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component (the length of the ring). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding the equations, as best understood and based on the conclusion reached in the rejection of claims 4 and 11 under 35 USC 112(b) lines 25-31 of the claim are not structurally limiting and are only reciting equations used to categorize or confirm that a bearing is suitable for the intended function, thus the equations themselves are not limiting. Excluding these equations, Manabe further discloses that an inner ring has an inside diameter, the inside diameter being sized such that the inner ring fits upon the shaft of the electric motor (again electric motor is intended use, all bearings have inner rings with diameters that allow them to fit upon a shaft or journal); the plurality of balls traverse a pitch circle extending about the centerline, the pitch circle having a pitch diameter (all ball bearings have balls that ride along a pitch circle that has a diameter). See citation of pertinent art below.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Manabe does not disclose that each ball is formed of ceramic and the value of the ball diameter is between three millimeters and six millimeters; and the inside diameter of the inner ring has a value between twenty millimeters and sixty millimeters.
With regards to the material, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Manabe and make the balls out of ceramic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regards to the ball diameter and the inside diameter of the inner ring, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a ball diameter range of 3-6mm and an inside diameter of the inner ring value of 20-60mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, selecting specific sizes for the parts does not change the underlying structure or the function of the bearing, diameters of balls and openings of the inner ring are selected based on a number of different design factors such as size of the shaft, thickness of inner ring, space between the inner ring and the outer ring, selecting specific values based on the design constraints for the bearing does not change the function or general purpose of the bearing.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, as best understood, the claim is defining means used to calculate aspects of the bearing without clearly setting forth any specific structure. Using a known load and determining the number of balls needed based on the property (load capacity) of the ball is a method of calculating a feature and not limiting the claim to any particular number of balls, likewise using the ball diameter to determine the pitch circle circumference or dividing that circumference by pi to determine a diameter is not structurally limiting but rather methods used to determine aspects of the bearing. Because of this it is unclear how claim 6 is further structurally limiting the claim and thus as best understood, since the same processes can be carried out in Manabe, the claim is rejected.
Regarding claim 16, Manabe discloses that the lubricant source includes a passage (500/501) formed in the shaft or the housing (in housing 50) and a connected lubricant reservoir (60, via the pumping structure), the passage having an outlet port spaced axially from the first axial ends of the inner and outer rings (the opening of 501 is spaced radially inward and axial adjacent the first end of the outer ring and is spaced from the first end of the inner ring) and configured to direct lubricant into the annular opening between the inner and outer rings (opens in a direction facing the bearing and thus directs lubricant into the bearing).
Regarding claim 17, Manabe discloses that the inner raceway and the outer raceway are each formed as a deep groove of a deep groove ball bearing (the illustrated bearing includes raceway grooves that the ball sits in, this is a deep groove ball bearing, the term “deep groove” is not limited to a particular depth but rather defines a class of bearings that have a groove for the rolling element so that the bearing supports radial and axial load, the bearing illustrated by Manabe does this and is thus a deep groove ball bearing as illustrated).
Claim(s) 7-8, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabe, US PGPub 2019/0383300, as applied to either claims 1 or 11 above, in view of Kasper, DE 3202070.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Manabe does not disclose that at least one of: the inner ring has an annular recessed surface formed at an intersection between the first axial end of the inner ring and the outer circumferential surface of the inner ring; and the outer ring has an annular recessed surface formed at an intersection between the first axial end of the outer ring and the inner circumferential surface of the outer ring.
Kasper teaches providing a bearing ring with an annular recessed surface (3) formed at an intersection between an axial end and the outer circumference of the inner ring in order to direct the lubricant coming in contact with the surface to the free space between the balls in order to properly lubricate the bearing (as suggested by the translated abstract attached).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Manabe and add the known structure of an annular recessed surface between an axial end of the bearing ring and the circumferential bearing surface, as taught by Kasper, for the purpose of directing the lubricant coming in contact with the surface to the free space between the balls in order to properly lubricate the bearing.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Manabe in view of Kasper discloses that each annular recessed surface is one of a chamfer, a fillet and a groove (3 in Kasper is a chamfer, NOTE: the use of each in this case is reference each of the possible two that are present as an opinion in claim 7, “each” in this case is not further limiting the claim to require more than one).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
If the recitations of claims 4, 6, 11 and 13 are later found to be structurally limiting Applicants attention is directed to USP 12,398,751, specifically claims 1 and 14 and 15 which address the same equations/design principles. This references appears to be commonly owned and may be overcome with a proper showing under 35 USC 102(b)(1) or (2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES PILKINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-5052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7-3.
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.
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617