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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the character of the lines, numbers, and letters are not sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well-defined as required by MPEP §608.02(V)(l). Figures 1-4 have poor line quality.
The examiner points out that the USPTO website has guidelines on how to submit drawing images for the best results. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-pdf-guidelines. Specifically, see the section which states:
It is recommended to use images saved in a lossless format (e.g., TIFF, PNG, GIF, BMP). It is strongly recommended that the PDF creation software does not downsample images during the PDF creation process, as this could degrade the quality of the image.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “spherical rollers” of claim 6, “a first set of the plurality of connecting structures extend from the main frame in a first direction and a second set of the plurality of connecting structures extend from the main frame in a second direction opposite the first direction” of claim 12, and “each of the plurality of connecting structures includes a first portion configured to guide a rolling element and a second portion mounted in a respective one of the axial grooves” of claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites “a first set of the plurality of connecting structures extend from the main frame in a first direction and a second set of the plurality of connecting structures extend from the main frame in a second direction opposite the first direction”. Claim 3 previously recited “the main frame…includes a plurality of connecting structures”. Neither the drawings nor the specification discloses two different sets of connecting structures nor do they disclose that the sets extend in different directions.
Claim 13 recites “wherein each of the plurality of connecting structures includes a first portion configured to guide a rolling element and a second portion mounted in a respective one of the axial grooves, and wherein a radial thickness of the first portion is greater than a radial width of the second portion.” Neither the drawings nor the specification discloses the connecting structures having two different portions that alternate.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-17 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.
Claim 1 recites “a hybrid cage”. As written, it is unclear what limitation, if any, the term ‘hybrid’ imparts to the claims. For example, is any cage formed of more than one element (not of one-piece construction) considered a hybrid? Or does hybrid mean made of different materials? If hybrid must mean made of different materials, then claim 2 would not further limit claim 1. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the “hybrid” simply means made of more than one element.
Claim 5 recites “bar-shaped cage beams of uniform shape”. As written, the limitation is unclear. Does the limitation mean that each cage beam is of uniform shape (i.e., the shape does not change along one of the dimensions), or does it mean that each cage beam is the same as all the other cage beams?
Claims 7 and 9 recite “the first material is stronger than the second material”. The limitation as written is unclear. Does this mean a higher Young’s Modulus, a harder surface, higher yield strength? One of ordinary skill in the art would not know what materials would meet the limitation.
Claim 8 recites “a wear-resistant polymer material”. It is unclear which polymers would be considered “wear-resistant” and which polymers would not.
Claim 13 recites “a radial thickness” and “a radial width”. It is unclear if these are dimensions in the same direction or if they are in different directions.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Torii JP 2007303607.
Re clm 1, Torii discloses a hybrid cage (Fig. 1-2) comprising: a unitary annular main frame (7), and a plurality of attachment members (8) fixedly attached to the main frame to define cage pockets for receiving rolling elements (3, Fig. 3).
Re clm 2, Torii further discloses the main frame is formed from a first material (carbon steel; [0024]) and the plurality of attachment members are formed from a second material (copper-based alloy) different than the first material.
Re clm 3, Torii further discloses the main frame forms a backbone (annular rim 7) and includes a plurality of connecting structures (notches 13), wherein each of the plurality of attachment members is mated to the backbone at a respective one of the plurality of connecting structures, and wherein a joint (half lap joint) exists between each of the plurality of attachment members and the respective one of the plurality of connecting structures.
Re clm 4, Torii further discloses the attachment members are fixedly connected to the connecting structures by fasteners (screws or rivets; [0024]).
Re clm 5, Torii the attachment members are bar-shaped cage beams of uniform shape (all elements have the same shape and thus are uniform).
Re clm 6, Torii further discloses the cage pockets are configured to guide cylindrical rollers or tapered rollers or spherical rollers (shown in Fig. 4-7; [0037]).
Re clm 7 and 9, Torii further discloses the first material is stronger than the second material (carbon steel is stronger than copper-alloys), and wherein the second material has a lower coefficient of friction than the first material (copper-alloys have lower friction than carbon steel; [0007] and [0020]).
Re clm 8 and 10, Torii further discloses the first material comprises iron, steel or an aluminum alloy (carbon steel; [0024]), and the second material comprises copper, a copper alloy, aluminum or a wear-resistant polymer material (copper alloy; [0024]).
Re clm 11, Torii further discloses each of the plurality of connecting structures is bar shaped and extends axially from the main frame (Fig. 1-2).
Re clm 12, Torii further discloses a first set of the plurality of connecting structures (every other notch 13) extend from the main frame in a first direction (a first axial direction) and a second set of the plurality of connecting structures (notch 13 between every other notch 13) extend from the main frame in a second direction (opposite to the first axial direction) opposite the first direction, and wherein the connecting structures of the first set of connecting structures and the connecting structures of the second set of connecting structures alternate in a circumferential direction.
Claim1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cha KR 10-2021-0146125.
Re clm 1, Cha discloses a hybrid cage (Fig. 1-4) comprising: a unitary annular main frame (110, Fig. 3), and a plurality of attachment members (120) fixedly attached to the main frame to define cage pockets for receiving rolling elements (30, Fig. 1). The device is considered hybrid since it is formed of different parts assembled together.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha KR 10-2021-0146125 in view of Torii JP 2007303607.
Assuming “hybrid” means different materials:
Re clm 1, Cha discloses a cage (Fig. 1-4) comprising: a unitary annular main frame (110, Fig. 3), and a plurality of attachment members (120) fixedly attached to the main frame to define cage pockets for receiving rolling elements (30, Fig. 1).
Cha does not disclose a “hybrid” cage since Cha is silent as to the materials of the cage.
Torii teaches making a hybrid cage out of different materials ([0017] and [0024]) for the purpose of preventing significant wear from occurring on the side surface in the axial direction of the rim portion while providing a low friction surface on the attachment member thus lowering the frictional resistance of the rolling elements with the attachment members ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cha and provide a “hybrid” cage for the purpose of preventing significant wear from occurring on the side surface in the axial direction of the rim portion while providing a low friction surface on the attachment member thus lowering the frictional resistance of the rolling elements with the attachment members.
Re clm 2, Cha in view of Torii further discloses the main frame is formed from a first material (carbon steel; [0024] of Torii) and the plurality of attachment members are formed from a second material (copper-based alloy; [0024] of Torii) different than the first material.
Re clm 3, Cha further discloses the main frame forms a backbone (annular rim 110) and includes a plurality of connecting structures (notches 111 and/or raised portions between notches), wherein each of the plurality of attachment members is mated to the backbone at a respective one of the plurality of connecting structures, and wherein a joint (recessed notch 111) exists between each of the plurality of attachment members and the respective one of the plurality of connecting structures.
Re clm 4, Cha further discloses the attachment members are fixedly connected to the connecting structures by fasteners (screws 130).
Re clm 5, Cha further discloses the attachment members are bar-shaped cage beams of uniform shape (all elements have the same shape and thus are uniform; Cha labels them “cage bar”).
Re clm 6, Cha further discloses the cage pockets are configured to guide cylindrical rollers or tapered rollers or spherical rollers (rollers for a spherical bearing; [0023]).
Re clm 7 and 9, the improvement of Torii further discloses the first material is stronger than the second material (carbon steel is stronger than copper-alloys), and wherein the second material has a lower coefficient of friction than the first material (copper-alloys have lower friction than carbon steel; [0007] and [0020]).
Re clm 8 and 10, the improvement of Torii further discloses the first material comprises iron, steel or an aluminum alloy (carbon steel; [0024]), and the second material comprises copper, a copper alloy, aluminum or a wear-resistant polymer material (copper alloy; [0024]).
Re clm 11, Cha further discloses each of the plurality of connecting structures is bar shaped and extends axially from the main frame (Fig. 1-3; 120 are labeled ‘cage bars’).
Re clm 12, Cha further discloses a first set of the plurality of connecting structures (notches on a first axial side extend toward a second axial side; or the portions of the rim 110 between the notches 11 on the first axial side extend toward the first axial side) extend from the main frame in a first direction (toward the second axial side regarding the notches; toward the first axial side regarding portions between notches) and a second set of the plurality of connecting structures (notches 111 on second axial side extend toward the first axial side; or the portions of 110 between notches 111 on the second axial side extend toward the second axial side) extend from the main frame in a second direction (toward the first axial side regarding the notches; toward the second axial side regarding the portions of 110 between the notches) opposite the first direction, and wherein the connecting structures of the first set of connecting structures and the connecting structures of the second set of connecting structures alternate in a circumferential direction (as shown in Fig. 3).
Re clm 13, Cha does not disclose each of the connecting structures comprises an axial groove in a radially outer surface of the main frame, wherein each of the plurality of connecting structures includes a first portion configured to guide a rolling element and a second portion mounted in a respective one of the axial grooves, and wherein a radial thickness of the first portion is greater than a radial width of the second portion.
Torii discloses providing a radial notch (13, Fig. 2) formed on a radial surface of the main frame (7d), wherein each of the plurality of connecting structures includes a first portion (axially protruding from frame 7d) configured to guide a rolling element and a second portion (reduced thickness portion at 12) mounted in a respective one of the axial grooves, and wherein a radial thickness of the first portion is greater than a radial width of the second portion (as shown in Fig. 2). This locates the attachment member and prevents movement in the radial direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connecting arrangement of Cha and provide each of the connecting structures comprises an axial groove in a radially outer surface of the main frame, wherein each of the plurality of connecting structures includes a first portion configured to guide a rolling element and a second portion mounted in a respective one of the axial grooves, and wherein a radial thickness of the first portion is greater than a radial width of the second portion for the purpose of locating and preventing movement of the attachment member in the radial direction.
The examiner notes there are only two possible locations for a radial notch, the radially outer surface or the radially inner surface. It is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that providing the radial notch on the outer surface of Cha is the vastly superior choice, since the shape of the recess of the notch 111 is tapered and thus already prevents radially outward movement of the attachment member, thus providing the notch at the radial outer surface with a corresponding tab or tongue of the bar 120 would also then prevent radially inward movement. Thus, the only forces on the screw 130 would be those in the axial outward direction since the connection would be reinforced by the joint design in the circumferential and radial directions.
Re clm 14, the improved connecting arrangement of Torii further disclose at least one pin (rivet in [0024]; fastener illustrated in Fig. 2) extending through the first portions and into the main frame to secure the attachment members to the frame
Re clm 15, the improvement of Torii further discloses the first material comprises iron (carbon steel; [0024] of Torii) and the second material comprises copper (copper-based alloy; [0024] of Torii).
Re clm 16, Cha further discloses a rolling bearing comprising: an inner ring (20, Fig. 1), an outer ring (10), a cage (100) according to claim 15, and a rolling element (30) mounted in each of the cage pockets.
Cha is silent as to the size of the bearing and does not disclose an outer diameter of the outer ring is at least 400 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Cha and provide an outer diameter of the outer ring is at least 400 mm, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A). Simply scaling the bearing up or down depending on the intended use (such as an automobile versus a wind turbine) of the bearing does not change how the bearing would function and would not perform differently.
Re clm 17, Cha further discloses a rolling bearing (Fig. 1) comprising: an inner ring (20), an outer ring (10), a cage (100) according to claim 2, and a rolling element (30) mounted in each of the cage pockets.
Cha is silent as to the size of the bearing and does not disclose an outer diameter of the outer ring is at least 400 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Cha and provide an outer diameter of the outer ring is at least 400 mm, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A). Simply scaling the bearing up or down depending on the intended use (such as an automobile versus a wind turbine) of the bearing does not change how the bearing would function and would not perform differently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN B WAITS whose telephone number is (571)270-3664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6-4 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John R Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN B WAITS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617