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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 10, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show Ri and Re (claim 7) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Status of Claims
The amendment filed on June 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 – 15 are pending in this application. The indicated allowability of claims 1 – 15 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference to Fujita et al. JP 2006097826, provided in the IDS dated September 10, 2026. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 2, “a volume” should read - - the volume - -.
Claim 5, line 2, “a volume” should read - - the volume - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatabe et al. USPGPUB 20050074192 in view of Fujita et al. JP 2006097826 (incl. machine translation).
Claim 1, Yatabe discloses a bearing (ball bearing 1b)(Fig. 3)([0049], l. 24) comprising: an inner ring (inner ring 5a)([0050], ll. 17 – 18) having an inner raceway (inner ring raceway 4a)([0049], ll. 18 – 19); an outer ring (outer ring 3b)([0049], l. 4) having an outer raceway (outer ring raceway 2a)([0049], ll. 4 – 5); rolling elements (balls 6)([0049], l. 18) located between the inner raceway and the outer raceway; a cage (retainer 7)([0038], l. 12) for holding the rolling elements; and a seal (sealed ring 8)([0049], l. 10); wherein a bearing inner space is defined by the inner ring, the outer ring and the seal; wherein a free space is a portion of the bearing inner space not occupied by the rolling elements and the cage, wherein lubricating oil is provided in the free space on a surface of the inner raceway and on a surface of the outer raceway ([0049]: ll. 15 – 19: “[t]hese hold recessed portions 16, 16 respectively function as grease storage portions and can continue to supply lubricating oil to the contact portions between the rolling surfaces of the balls 6 and the outer ring raceway 2a, inner ring raceway 4a for a long period of time”).
Yatabe differs from the claimed invention in that Yatabe employs grease as the lubricant reservoir (see [0049], ll. 15 – 19) and does not disclose using lubricating oil, without grease, in an amount less than 5% of the volume of the free space).
Fujita teaches that a sealed ball bearing may be lubricated using a relatively small quantity of lubricating oil and specifically, teaches an oil quantity corresponding to less than 5% of the volume of the free space employing an oil lubrication method in place of a grease lubrication method, wherein a volume of the lubricating oil is than 5% of a volume of the free space ([0025], ll. 1 – 5: “[t]he amount of lubricating oil applied is preferably 0.1% to 10% of the internal bearing space volume formed by the inner ring, outer ring, and rolling elements. Furthermore, considering lubrication and lubricant leakage, a concentration of 0.25% to 5% is preferable”). Fujita further teaches that limiting the amount of oil reduces viscous resistance and associated rotational torque while providing sufficient lubricant at the rolling contact surfaces ([0002], ll. 1 – 4: “In HDDs, as they become thinner, the output of the voice coil motor (VCM) decreases, requiring lower torque for the rolling bearings incorporated into the actuators. This has led to a trend towards lubrication methods using lubricating oil rather than the conventional grease lubrication”).
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 lubrication arrangement of Yatabe by replacing the grease reservoir with the limited quantity of lubricating oil (a volume of the lubricating oil is less than 5% of the volume of the free space) taught by Fujita. One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to reduce lubricant-induced rotational resistance while maintaining lubrication of the rolling contact surfaces would have recognized that the use of a limited quantity of oil as a known modification. The modification therefore constitutes the application of a known technique to a known ball bearing to obtain the predictable result of reducing lubricant torque resistance while retaining lubrication of the rolling contact surfaces of the balls and raceways.
Claim 4, the modification of Fujita does not expressly disclose the volume of the lubricating oil being less than 3% of the free space. Fujita discloses the amount of lubricating oil is preferably between 0.25% to 5% of the volume of the free space ([0025], ll. 1 – 5).
The difference between Fujita and the present invention lies in the range(s) of the lubricant oil volume % of the free space. The range of Fujita does not fall within the claimed range(s) of less than 3% of the free space. However, the range(s) of Fujita encompasses the claimed range. “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 Fujita.
Claim 5, the modification of Fujita does not expressly disclose the volume of the lubricating oil being less than 2% of the free space. Fujita discloses the amount of lubricating oil is preferably between 0.25% to 5%of the volume of the free space ([0025], ll. 1 – 5).
The difference between Fujita and the present invention lies in the range(s) of the lubricant oil volume % of the free space. The range of Fujita does not fall within the claimed range(s) of less than 2% of the free space. However, the range(s) of Fujita encompasses the claimed range. “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 Fujita.
Claim 6, the modification of Fujita discloses the lubricating oil being more than 0.5% of the free space (including less than 2% of the volume free space as set forth in claim 4).
The difference between Fujita and the present invention lies in the range(s) of the lubricant oil volume % of the free space. The range of Fujita does not fall within the claimed range(s) of more than 0.5% of the free space (including less the 2% of the free space). However, the range(s) of Fujita overlapps the claimed range. “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 Fujita.
Claim 7, Yatabe does not expressly disclose a relative groove curvature Ri of the inner raceway satisfies 0.52 < Ri <0.58, and/or a relative groove curvature Re of the outer raceway satisfies 0.53 < Re < 0.58. However, Yatabe does disclose a relative groove curvature Ri of the inner raceway satisfies 0.52 < Ri <0.65 ([0040], l. 8), and/or a relative groove curvature Re of the outer raceway satisfies 0.53 < Re < 0.65 ([0040], l. 7).
The difference between Yatabe and the present invention lies in the range(s) of the relative groove curvatures Ri and Re. The range(s) of Yatabe do not fall within the claimed range(s) of 0.52 < Ri <0.65 and 0.53 < Re < 0.65. However, the range(s) of Yatabe encompasses the claimed range(s) of the present invention. “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(s) are rendered obvious by Yatabe.
Claim 8, Yatabe discloses a diameter Dr (Db) of the rolling elements satisfying Dr ≤ 0.35 * (H1-H2), where H1 (D) is an outer diameter of the outer ring, and H2 (d) is an inner diameter of the inner ring (Yatabe in [0079] discloses an example where the values are Db = 3.97, D = 22 mm, d = 8 mm. Said values satisfies the equation Dr ≥ 0.35 * (H1-H2) = 3.97 mm ≤ 0.35*(22 – 8) = 4.9 mm).
Claim 12, Yatabe discloses the seal 8 being provided at an axial end of the bearing and is fixed to a first one of the outer ring 3b and the inner ring 5a, and a gap is provided between the seal and the other one of the outer ring or the inner ring.
Claim 13, Yatabe does not expressly disclose the gap having a radial width between 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm and an axial length between 0.1 mm and 2 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yatabe, such that the gap has a radial width between 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm and an axial length between 0.1 mm and 2 mm, since it was been held that where the general conditions of a claim (a gap having a radial width and axial length provided between the seal and the inner ring) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3 and 9 – 11 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 14 and 15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 15, the prior art of record, including Yatabe et al. (USPGPUB 20050074192) and Fujita et al. (JP 2006097826), taken as a whole neither teaches nor makes obvious the claimed combination including performing a centrifugal drying operation.
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