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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, Ri [clm 1], Re [clm 2], the winding cylinder [clm 16], shaft [clm 16], and rotatable cylinder [clm 16] 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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yatabe (US 20050074192 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yatabe discloses (in fig. 1) a bearing (1a) comprising:
an inner ring (5a) having an inner raceway (4a);
an outer ring (3a) having an outer raceway (2a);
rolling elements (6) located between the inner raceway (4a) and the outer raceway (2a);
and a cage (7) for holding the rolling elements (6);
wherein a diameter Dr (Db) of the rolling elements satisfies Dr ≤ 0.35 * (H1-H2),
where H1 (D which para. [0041] discloses can be between 15-40mm) is an outer diameter of the outer ring (3a),
and H2 (d which para. [0041] discloses can be between 6-18mm) is an inner diameter of the inner ring (5a), and Para. [0079] discloses an example where the values are Db = 3.97, D = 22 mm, d = 8 mm, which satisfies the equation Dr ≤ 0.35 * (H1-H2), as plugging in the equation shows 3.97 mm ≤ 4.9 mm).
and a relative groove curvature Ri (Ri/Db) of the inner raceway satisfies 0.52 ≤ Ri ≤ 0.58, and/or a relative groove curvature Re (Ro/Db) of the outer raceway satisfies 0.53 ≤ Re ≤ 0.58 (Para. [0040] discloses 0.53 <Ro/Db ≤ 0.65 and 0.52 <Ri/Db ≤ 0.65, which contains the relative groove curvature ranges of the instant application).
Regarding claim 2, Yatabe discloses the bearing according to claim 1, wherein the relative groove curvature Ri (Ri/Db) of the inner raceway satisfies 0.54 ≤ Ri ≤ 0.56, and/or the relative groove curvature Re (Ro/Db) of the outer raceway satisfies 0.55 ≤ Re ≤ 0.58 (Para. [0040] discloses 0.53 <Ro/Db ≤ 0.65 and 0.52 <Ri/Db ≤ 0.65, which contains the relative groove curvature ranges of the instant application).
Regarding claim 3, Yatabe discloses the bearing according to claim 1, wherein a diameter Dr (Db) of the rolling elements satisfies Dr ≥ 0.2 * (H1-H2) (Para. [0079] discloses an example where the values are Db = 3.97, D = 22 mm, d = 8 mm, which satisfies the equation Dr ≥ 0.2 * (H1-H2), as plugging in the equation shows 3.97 mm ≥ 2.8 mm).
Regarding claim 4, Yatabe discloses the bearing according to claim 1, wherein a diameter Dr (Db) of the rolling elements satisfies 0.25 * (H1-H2) ≤ Dr ≤ 0.32 * (H1-H2). (Para. [0079] discloses an example where the values are Db = 3.97, D = 22 mm, d = 8 mm, which satisfies the equation 0.25 * (H1-H2) ≤ Dr ≤ 0.32 * (H1-H2), as plugging in the equation shows 3.5 mm ≤ 3.97 mm ≤ 4.48 mm).
Regarding claim 5, Yatabe discloses the bearing according to claim 1, wherein the inner diameter H2 (d) of the inner ring satisfies 7 mm ≤ H2 ≤ 40 mm (para. [0041] discloses that d can be between 6-18mm, which contains part of the range of the instant application.)
Regarding claim 6, Yatabe discloses the bearing according to claim 1, wherein the inner diameter H2 (d) of the inner ring satisfies 10 mm ≤ H2 ≤ 30 mm, (para. [0041] discloses that d can be between 6-18mm, which contains part of the range of the instant application.)
Regarding claim 7, Yatabe discloses the bearing according to claim 1, further comprising a seal, wherein the seal (8) is provided at an axial end of the bearing (1a), and wherein the seal (8) is fixed to the outer ring (3a) or the inner ring and spaced from the inner ring (5a) or the outer ring by a gap (there is a gap between 8 and 5a).
Regarding claim 8, Yatabe discloses the bearing according to claim 1, further comprising a seal, wherein the seal (8) is provided at an axial end of the bearing, and wherein the seal is fixed to the outer ring and a gap is provided between the seal (8) and the inner ring (5a, (there is a gap between 8 and 5a).
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) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatabe (US 20050074192 A1) in view of Tsuchida (JP 2002115724 A).
Regarding claim 9, Yatabe discloses the bearing according to claim 7 but does not disclose the gap has a width extending in a radial direction of the bearing, and the width is between 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm.
Tsuchida teaches (in fig. 1) the gap (19) has a width (d19) extending in a radial direction of the bearing, and the width is between 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm for the purpose of ensuring longer rolling fatigue life (para. [0018] discloses d19 is 0.2 mm or less, which includes the range of the instant application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the width of the gap, as taught by Tsuchida, in the bearing of Yatabe for the purpose of ensuring longer rolling fatigue life (para. [0018]). It would also have been obvious to have the width of the gap be between 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, Yatabe in view of Tsuchida teaches the bearing according to claim 9 but does not teach wherein the gap has a length extending in an axial direction of the bearing, and the length is between 0.1 mm and 2 mm.
Tsuchida further teaches (in fig. 1) the gap (19) has a length (L19) extending in an axial direction of the bearing, and the length is between 0.1 mm and 2 mm (para. [0018] discloses L19 is 0.2 mm or more, which includes the range of the instant application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the length of the gap, as taught by Tsuchida, in the bearing of Yatabe for the purpose of ensuring longer rolling fatigue life (para. [0018]). It would also have been obvious to have the length of the gap be between 0.1 mm and 2 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatabe (US 20050074192 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 5401105 A).
Regarding claim 11, Yatabe discloses the bearing according to claim 1 but does not disclose including a lubricating oil on the inner raceway and on the outer raceway, wherein a viscosity of the lubricating oil is less than 25 cSt at a temperature of 40°C
Suzuki teaches (in fig. 1 and abstract) including a lubricating oil on the inner raceway (1) and on the outer raceway (3), wherein a viscosity of the lubricating oil is less than 25 cSt at a temperature of 40°C for the purpose of reducing the necessary torque for rotation while causing less fluctuations in torque (abstract teaches where the lubricating oil can be located and the lubricating oil has a viscosity of 10-150 mm2/s (mm2/s is the SI unit for cSt), which includes the range of the instant application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lubricating oil on the inner raceway and on the outer race way to have the viscosity of the lubricating oil is less than 25 cSt at a temperature of 40°C, as taught by Suzuki, in the bearing of Yatabe for the purpose of reducing the necessary torque for rotation while causing less fluctuations in torque (abstract teaches where the lubricating oil can be located and the lubricating oil has a viscosity of 10-150 mm2/s (mm2/s is the SI unit for cSt), which includes the range of the instant application).
Regarding claim 12, Yatabe discloses the bearing according to claim 1 but does not disclose including a lubricating oil on the inner raceway and on the outer raceway, wherein a viscosity of the lubricating oil is less than 20 cSt at the temperature of 40°C.
Suzuki teaches (in fig. 1 and abstract) including a lubricating oil on the inner raceway (1) and on the outer raceway (3), wherein a viscosity of the lubricating oil is less than 25 cSt at a temperature of 40°C for the purpose of reducing the necessary torque for rotation while causing less fluctuations in torque (abstract teaches where the lubricating oil can be located and the lubricating oil has a viscosity of 10-150 mm2/s ( mm2/s is the SI unit for cSt), which includes the range of the instant application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lubricating oil on the inner raceway and on the outer race way to have the viscosity of the lubricating oil is less than 20 cSt at a temperature of 40°C, as taught by Suzuki, in the bearing of Yatabe for the purpose of reducing the necessary torque for rotation while causing less fluctuations in torque (abstract teaches where the lubricating oil can be located and the lubricating oil has a viscosity of 10-150 mm2/s (mm2/s is the SI unit for cSt), which includes the range of the instant application).
Regarding claim 13, Yatabe discloses the bearing according to claim 1 but does not disclose including a lubricating oil on the inner raceway and on the outer raceway, wherein a viscosity of the lubricating oil is less than 15 cSt at the temperature of 40°C.
Suzuki teaches (in fig. 1 and abstract) including a lubricating oil on the inner raceway (1) and on the outer raceway (3), wherein a viscosity of the lubricating oil is less than 15 cSt at a temperature of 40°C for the purpose of reducing the necessary torque for rotation while causing less fluctuations in torque (abstract shows the lubricating oil has a viscosity of 10-150 mm2/s (mm2/s is the SI unit for cSt), which includes the range of the instant application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lubricating oil on the inner raceway and on the outer race way to have the viscosity of the lubricating oil is less than 15 cSt at a temperature of 40°C, as taught by Suzuki, in the bearing of Yatabe for the purpose of reducing the necessary torque for rotation while causing less fluctuations in torque (abstract teaches where the lubricating oil can be located and the lubricating oil has a viscosity of 10-150 mm2/s (mm2/s is the SI unit for cSt), which includes the range of the instant application).
Regarding claim 14, Yatabe in view of Suzuki teaches the bearing according to claim 11 but does not disclose an oil film thickness of the lubricating oil on the inner raceway and/or on the outer raceway is between 0.01 mm and 0.05 mm.
Suzuki further teaches (in abstract) an oil film thickness of the lubricating oil on the inner raceway and/or on the outer raceway is between 0.01 mm and 0.05 mm for the purpose of reducing the necessary torque for rotation while causing less fluctuations in torque (abstract teaches the thickness is between 0.03 to 20 μm. 20 μm is also 0.02 mm, which is within the range of the instant application).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatabe (US 20050074192 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 5401105 A) and in further view of Fujita (JP 2006097826 A).
Regarding claim 15, Yatabe in view of Suzuki teaches the bearing according to claim 11 but does not disclose a volume of the lubricating oil is less than 5% of a volume of a free space inside the bearing.
Fujita teaches a volume of the lubricating oil is less than 5% of a volume of a free space inside the bearing for the purpose of lubricant leakage consideration (para. [0025] discloses the amount of lubricating oil is preferable between 0.25% to 5%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a volume of the lubricating oil be less than 5% of a volume of free space inside of the bearing, as taught by Fujita, in the bearing of Yatabe in view of Suzuki for the purpose of lubricant leakage consideration (para. [0025] discloses the amount of lubricating oil is preferable between 0.25% to 5%. It would also have been obvious to have a volume of the lubricating oil be less than 5% of a volume of free space inside of the bearing, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatabe (US 20050074192 A1) in view of Honda (US 20130330472 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Yatabe discloses the bearing of claim 1 but does not disclose a winding cylinder comprising: a shaft; the bearing arranged on the shaft ; and a rotatable cylinder arranged on the bearing.
Honda teaches (in fig. 1a) a winding cylinder (6A) comprising: a shaft (10); the bearing (18) arranged on the shaft (10); and a rotatable cylinder (11) arranged on the bearing (18, para. [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have the winding cylinder, as taught by Honda, and substitute it with the bearing of Yatabe, as it is substituting one known bearing for another that performs the same function.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatabe (US 20050074192 A1) in view of Fujita (JP 2006097826 A) and in further view of Iijima (US 6277195 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Yatabe discloses a method including a bearing (1a) comprising:
the bearing (1a) including an inner ring (5a) with an inner raceway (4a),
an outer ring (3a) with an outer raceway (2a),
rolling elements (6) located between the inner raceway (4a) and the outer raceway (2a),
a cage (7) for holding the rolling elements (6),
and a seal (8);
wherein a diameter Dr (Db) of the rolling elements satisfies Dr ≤ 0.35 * (H1-H2),
where H1 (D which para. [0041] discloses can be between 15-40mm) is an outer diameter of the outer ring (3a)
and H2 (d which para. [0041] discloses can be between 6-18mm) is an inner diameter of the inner ring (5a, and Para. [0079] discloses an example where the values are Db = 3.97, D = 22 mm, d = 8 mm, which satisfies the equation Dr ≤ 0.35 * (H1-H2), as plugging in the equation shows 3.97 mm ≤ 4.9 mm);
and a relative groove curvature Ri (Ri/Db) of the inner raceway satisfies 0.52 ≤ Ri ≤ 0.58, and/or a relative groove curvature Re (Ro/Db) of the outer raceway satisfies 0.53 ≤ Re ≤ 0.58 (Para. [0040] discloses 0.53 <Ro/Db ≤ 0.65 and 0.52 <Ri/Db ≤ 0.65, which contains the relative groove curvature ranges of the instant application).
Yatabe does not disclose a method for applying a lubricating oil to a bearing comprising immersing the bearing in the lubricating oil and performing centrifugal drying operation on the bearing.
Fujita teaches a method for applying a lubricating oil to a bearing comprising immersing the bearing in the lubricating oil and performing drying operation on the bearing or the purpose of preventing leakage of the lubrication oil composition (para. [0025] discloses immersing the bearing in the lubricating oil and then drying).
Yatabe in view of Fujita does not teach that the drying operation is a centrifugal drying operation.
Iijima teaches the drying operation is a centrifugal drying operation (col. 6, lines 12-21 discloses a spin dry booth, which is a centrifugal dying operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the drying method of Yatabe with the centrifugal drying method, as taught by Iijima, as it is substituting one method of drying for another to achieve the predictable results of time saving and fast drying. Substituting one method of drying for another is within the level of ordinary skill regardless of how its dried to the point it is dried.
Regarding claim 18, Yatabe in view of Fujita and in further view of Iijima teaches the method according to claim 17 but does not disclose a volume of the lubricating oil in a free space inside the bearing is less than 5% of a volume of the free space inside the bearing.
Fujita further teaches a volume of the lubricating oil is less than 5% of a volume of a free space inside the bearing for the purpose of lubricant leakage consideration (para. [0025] discloses the amount of lubricating oil is preferable between 0.25% to 5%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a volume of the lubricating oil be less than 5% of a volume of free space inside of the bearing, as further taught by Fujita, in the bearing of Yatabe in view of Fujita for the purpose of lubricant leakage consideration (para. [0025] discloses the amount of lubricating oil is preferable between 0.25% to 5%. It would also have been obvious to have a volume of the lubricating oil be less than 5% of a volume of free space inside of the bearing, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
An (US 20230047216 A1) discloses a deep groove ball bearing with dimensions.
An (US 20220025925 A1) discloses another deep groove ball bearing with dimensions.
Forster (US 20180100540 A1) discloses an angular contact ball bearing with dimensions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIMEE T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 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 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.
/AIMEE TRAN NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights