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 and 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 13-14, “an outer surface and an inner side” should read - -the outer surface and the inner side” since the surfaces/sides being recited appear earlier in the claim.
Claim 7, line 3, in addressing the previous issue under 35 USC 112(b) Applicant has changed “the inner surface” to “an inner surface”. In the original claim based on the cage being defined as a radial bearing cage it was understood that “the inner surface” was in reference to “an inner side” in claim 1. However the change presented now appears as if there are two distinct sides/surfaces being claimed, the claims should use one term when referring to the same part.
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 3-4 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.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant resolved the previous rejection under 35 USC 112 of claim 2 by canceling the claim and amending claim 3 to depend from claim 1, however this has now created an antecedent basis issue for the recitation of “the inclined surface” in lines 1-2.
In light of the amendment to claim 1, the amendment of claim 3 to state “with increasing distance from the cage main body” is unclear. The cage main body as defined in the disclosure is the whole cage, this is made of a plurality of subcomponents including the partition(s) and thus the claim reads as if the distance is changing relative to itself when in actuality the thickness increases with increasing distance relative to the axial end (now including in claim 1).
Claim 3 should be amended to include proper antecedent basis for the inclined surface and the frame of reference should be amended in a manner that is consistent with the added recitations to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any reference or previous grounds of rejection applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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