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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno, USP 7,707,983, in view of Kasper, DE 3202070.
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), an axial length defined between the first and second axial ends 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 between the first and second axial ends 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; 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 or outer ring and the ball diameter is greater than 2.5.
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).
Ueno also does not disclose that 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/or 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 (specifically on the inner ring lubricant that contacts the recessed surface would be directed upward into the bearing based on the centrifugal force).
Regarding claim 4, based on the conclusion previously reached in the non-final office action and the remarks the claim is 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). In other words the equations are equations used in the design of the bearing and are not further structurally limiting and are directed to overall bearing design, regardless of what equations are used in the design of the bearing the general structure of the bearing remains the same. As the claim is not limiting the claim to any particular size/dimension or number of balls it is not structurally limiting and developing equations to define a bearing is not inventive as one skilled in the art can derive a wide variety of equation to define or categorize any bearing.
Regarding claim 5, 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 claim 6, 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 claim 6 is not further structurally limiting the claim and thus, since the same process can be carried out for any bearing, including that of Ueno, the claim is rejected.
Regarding claim 8, 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).
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, 4-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabe, US PGPub 2019/0383300, in view of Kasper, DE 3202070.
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), an axial length defined between the first and second axial ends 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), an axial length between the first and second axial ends 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; 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.
Manabe does not disclose that the inner ring and the outer ring are sized such that a ratio of the axial length of the inner ring and the ball diameter is greater than 2.5.
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).
Manabe also does not disclose that 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/or 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 claim 4, as explained above, the claim is 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).
Regarding claim 5, 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 claim 6, 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 claim 6 is not further structurally limiting the claim and since the same processes can be carried out in Manabe, the claim is rejected.
Regarding claim 8, 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).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, with regards to the previous rejection under 35 USC 112 regarding claim 4, Applicant makes the comment that claim 4 “limits the structure of the bearing to having a combination of values” however this is not the case. There are no specific values relative to the actual dimensions of the bearing given. X is the suitability factor that Applicant has developed to determine if the bearing fits the needs, this is based on dimensions but no value for these dimension is given, thus X can be anything. The claim attempts to bound X by LL and UL, but these are based on the inside diameter of the inner ring, however again no value is given. Applicant may be attempting to define the value based on the shaft of the electric motor, however the electric motor is intended use and electric motors can come in a wide variety of sizes with different shaft dimensions so this too is not structurally or dimensionally limiting. There is nothing in the claim that limits the size or any of the variables to any specific value or range and thus these equations cannot be considered structurally limiting in any manner and can be applicable to bearings of all sizes. Applicant further references “standard ball size” however there is no standard mentioned in the claim, while there are standards with regards to some specific bearings no such standard is recited in the claim or the disclosure.
This also holds true for claim 6 which also does not define any specific values or sizing.
With regards to the prior art rejection Applicant:
It is first noted that Applicant repeatedly references the electric vehicle or optimized for the electric vehicle, however the claims are not limited to an electric vehicle, the claims are limited to a standalone bearing that can be used in an electric vehicle. Recitations regarding the electric vehicle or even dimensions that Applicant feels that these may imply are not limiting unless explicitly stated in the claim.
Applicant also states that the ratio the length and ball diameter being greater than 2.5 requires a “narrow” path, however again no specific values are given, the actual spacing between the rings is determined by the ball diameter, the length of the bearing rings makes the “path” long or short. As no dimensions are recited in the claim there is actually no specific spacing size required by the independent claim and “narrow” would be a relative term is presented in the claim.
Applicant then explains that the invention of the application is to provide an increase of lubricant flow and argues that Ueno is not concerned with providing adequate lubricant flow. However, it is not required that the prior art discuss the same problem in order to be used in an anticipation or obviousness rejection, rather the prior art must disclose the claimed structure of an apparatus claim, Ueno discloses this structure as explained above, including having the lubricant source on the opposite side of the cage relative to the annular base of the cage.
Applicant concludes the first part of the argument by stating Ueno does not disclose the recessed surface, however Ueno was never used to address this feature, this feature now incorporated into the independent claim was previously addressed using the teaching reference of Kasper.
Applicant presents the same general argument relative to Manabe which is unpersuasive for the same reasons explained above.
Applicant further points out that Manabe is related to “an infinitesimal flow rate pump” and thus because of the small flow rate there is no need to add recess surfaces, while not addressing the teaching reference specifically in this portion (page 16), regardless of the flow rate using “recessed surfaces”, specifically chamfers provides the predictable result of channeling fluid to the bearing regardless of the actual flow rate which is desirable in order to make sure all of the lubricant that needs to make it into the bearing is directed to it.
With regards to the actual application of Kasper against the claims Applicant focus on the utility of Ueno and the utility of Kasper along with again referencing dimensions and the “narrow” gap. Relative to the dimensions and the narrow gap the position above remains unchanged. With regards to the utility of each reference Applicant argues that this makes the reference non-analogous, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the field of endeavor is considered a bearings in general, not camshafts or vacuum pumps, any bearing and bearing lubrication system would be applicable to the claimed invention and would be analogous references.
With regards to the combination of Manabe and Kasper Applicant again places emphasis on the dimensions, regarding this position see above. Applicant further argues that because of the vertical orientation of Manabe there is no need to add a chamfer as gravity would naturally direct the lubricant into the bearing. However, a chamfered surface used in a vertical orientation creates a funneling effect that does add in the channeling or directing of the fluid to the rolling contact surface instead of arbitrarily dripping in the bearing. It is the general concept of channeling and directing of the lubricant flow that is being taught by Kasper, this can apply to bearings regardless of the orientation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights