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
Claims 1 – 3 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 16, “and/or a formed” should read - - and/or formed - -.
Claim 1, line 20, “and/or a formed” should read - - and/or formed - -.
Claim 2, line 2, “at least one annular recessed surface” should read - - the at least one annular recessed surface - -.
Claim 11, line 17, “and/or a formed” should read - - and/or formed - -.
Claim 1, line 21, “and/or a formed” should read - - and/or formed - -.
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 10 and 19 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the lubricant source" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the housing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the housing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Watabe et al. USPGPUB 20240110595. (Note: the recitation in the denoted by “[ ]” represents intended use in the preamble. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114. Further, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).)
Claim 1, Watabe discloses a ball bearing (deep groove ball bearing 10)(Fig. 1)([0040], ll. 1 – 2) for an [electric vehicle, the ball bearing supporting a load applied to a shaft of an electric motor of the vehicle], the ball bearing comprising: an inner ring 12 ([0040], l. 4) having a centerline, an inner circumferential surface (inner diameter surface 12c)([0065], ll. 3 – 4) sized to fit upon the shaft ([0048], ll. 9 – 10: “…the deep groove ball bearing 10 is used for a rotation shaft…”) [of the electric motor], an outer circumferential surface (outer diameter surface 12b)([0065], l. 2), a radial thickness (thickness c)([0065], l. 1) defined between the inner and outer circumferential surfaces, a first axial end, an opposing second axial end, and an inner raceway (inner ring raceway groove 12a)([0040], ll. 4 – 5) formed in the outer circumferential surface; an outer ring 11 ([0040], l. 2) disposed about the inner ring and having an outer circumferential surface (outer diameter surface 11c)([0065], l. 7), an inner circumferential surface (inner diameter surface 11b)([0065], l. 6), a radial thickness (thickness d)([0065], ll. 4 – 5) defined between the inner and outer circumferential surfaces, a first axial end, an opposing second axial end and an outer raceway (outer ring raceway groove)([0040], l. 3) formed in the inner circumferential surface; and a plurality of balls 13 ([0040], l. 6) disposed between the inner raceway and the outer raceway, each ball having a ball diameter; wherein one of: a ratio between the radial thickness of the inner ring and the ball diameter is at least 1.0 (anticipated by Watabe, since Watabe discloses the radial dimension f of the inner ring being greater than the ball diameter g – [0068], ll. 1 – 7: “[w]hen a radial dimension between the outer diameter of the inner ring raceway groove 12a and the inner diameter of the inner ring 12 is f, a diameter of the ball 13 is g, and a radial dimension between the inner diameter of the outer ring raceway groove 11a and the outer diameter of the outer ring 11 is h, a relationship between the dimensions is f>g>h”) and the inner ring includes at least one annular recessed surface (seal groove 12d)([0045], ll. 1 – 2) formed between the outer circumferential surface 11c and the first axial end and/or a formed between the outer circumferential surface 12c and the second axial end; and a ratio between the radial thickness of the outer ring and the ball diameter is at least 1.0 and the outer ring includes at least one annular recessed surface formed between the inner circumferential surface and the first axial end and/or a formed between the inner circumferential surface and the second axial end.
Claim 2, Watabe discloses each one of the inner and outer rings with at least one annular recessed surface (11e, 12d) having a reduced radial thickness at each one of the first and second axial ends adjacent to the annular recessed surface, the reduced radial thickness having a value of less than eighty percent of a value of the radial thickness of a remainder of the inner ring or the outer ring.
Claim 6, Watabe discloses at least one of: the inner ring having a first annular recessed surface 12d formed between the outer circumferential surface and the first axial end and a second annular recessed surface 12e formed between the outer circumferential surface and the second axial end; and the outer ring having a first annular recessed surface (seal attachment groove 11e)([0044], l. 2) formed between the inner circumferential surface and the first axial end and a second annular recessed surface 11e formed between the inner circumferential surface and the second axial end.
Claim 7, Watabe discloses each annular recessed surface being one of a chamfer, a fillet and a groove.
Claim 9, Watabe discloses a lubricant source (grease G)(Fig. 16)([0095], l. 3) 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; and a bearing cage (crown-shaped retainer 14)([0040], l. 8) including an annular base 14b, a plurality of arms 14a extending axially from the annular base and a plurality of pockets (P) each defined between a separate pair of adjacent arms, each pocket retaining a separate one of the balls 13, 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.
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) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe et al. USPGPUB 20240110595 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katsuno et al. USPGPUB 20090131235.
Claim 8, Watabe discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 8, including the inner ring having an axial length defined between the first and second axial ends of the inner ring; and the outer ring having an axial length defined between the first and second axial ends of the outer ring.
Watabe does not expressly disclose 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.
Katsuno teaches that it was known to size the inner and outer rings such that a ratio of the axial length or width of the inner and outer rings and the ball diameter is set to a particular value, in order to optimize bearing stiffness ([0064]: “To add, while the appropriate ball diameter for the narrow width ball bearings according to the invention varies with the presence or absence of seals and some other items, an extreme reduction in ball diameter to increase stiffness would increase the facial pressure between the balls and the contact portions of the raceway grooves of the inner and outer rings to invite a drop in resistance to indentation; therefore, a range of approximately 30% to 90% of the bearing width (B) or (B2/2) is desirable”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ball bearing device of Katsuno, such that a ratio of the axial length or width of the inner and outer rings and the ball diameter is set to a particular value, as taught by Katsuno, for the purpose of optimizing bearing stiffness.
Regarding the ratio of at least 2.0, the range of Watabe as modified by Katsuno do not fall within the claimed range. However, the range (“30% to 90%” or 1.11 to 3.33 of the axial length to the ball diameter) of Watabe as modified by Katsuno overlaps the claimed range of the present invention. According to the teaching of Katsuno ([0064]), those of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the axial length of the inner and outer rings can be sized according to the claimed ratio with a reasonable expectation of success. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)". Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the claimed range is rendered obvious by Watabe in view of Katsuno.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11 – 18 are allowed based on the same subject matter set forth in allowable claim 3.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5216. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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.
/PHILLIP A JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights