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 5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, reference character 104 in line 2 should be removed from the claim.
Claim 8, character “α1” should be deleted as it is not necessary in order to understand the claim and is not later used by the claim in any limiting manner.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the bearing unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically no “unit” is called out in the previous claims. What features of claim 1 are included and excluded in the “unit”? If by “unit” Applicant intends to claim “assembly” then the claim would be unclear as it would appear to be stating that the assembly which includes the housing would be longer than a feature of itself. It appears that the intent may be for the unit to include only the outer ring, inner ring and rolling elements, this needs to be made clear in the claims.
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, 2 and 4-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nisley, USP 5,908,248, in view of Marks GB132166.
Regarding claim 1, Nisley discloses a self-aligning tapered roller bearing assembly comprising: an outer ring (18, made of multiple parts 22 and 24 just like in the instant application); an inner ring (20); a plurality of rolling elements (26) situated to provide a rolling interface between the outer ring and the inner ring about a central bearing axis (axis runs along 12), wherein the plurality of rolling elements are situated in multiple rows along the central bearing axis (see figure 1); and a housing (16) having an interior bearing receptacle (holding 18) defining a central housing axis (axial along 12).
Nisley is silent with regards to the specifics of the housing and connection between the outer ring and housing and thus does not disclose that the receptacle includes a concave spherical support surface configured to tolerate misalignment between the central bearing axis and the central housing axis about a central point, wherein an outside surface of the outer ring includes, at a central axial position thereof, a plurality of circumferentially-spaced convex spherical cogs, and wherein the housing is not split, such that the interior bearing receptacle is integral and not separable.
Marks teaches a similar self-alignment bearing configuration wherein the housing element (1) includes a receptacle with a concave spherical support surface (see figures 3-5 showing the curved surfaces or the surface indicated by 4) configured to tolerate misalignment between the central bearing axis (pivoting as shown in figures 4 and 5) and the central housing axis about a central point, wherein an outside surface of the outer ring (3/11) includes, at a central axial position thereof, a plurality of circumferentially-spaced convex spherical cogs (7), and wherein the housing is not split, such that the interior bearing receptacle is integral and not separable (using the cog system allows for the housing element to remain as one solid piece that is not split and thus the receptacle defined therein is one integral feature that is not separable just like in the instant application) for the purpose of providing a mounting system for the bearing that allows for a very cheap configuration with simple insertion while also preventing the final product from separating (page 1, lines 7-16 and page 2, lines 17-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Nisley and provide a housing and outer ring arrangement with any previously known mounting configuration, including one that has a receptacle that includes a concave spherical support surface configured to tolerate misalignment between the central bearing axis and the central housing axis about a central point, wherein an outside surface of the outer ring includes, at a central axial position thereof, a plurality of circumferentially-spaced convex spherical cogs, and wherein the housing is not split, such that the interior bearing receptacle is integral and not separable, as taught by Marks, for the purpose of providing a mounting system for the bearing that allows for a very cheap configuration with simple insertion while also preventing the final product from separating. In addition, the above modification can be viewed as substituting one known mounting configuration for another that provides the predictable result securing the bearing components together, as Marks demonstrates that the mounting system is not new, novel or inventive, claim 1 as a whole is not inventive.
Regarding claim 2, Nisley in view of Marks discloses that the housing (housing 1 in Marks) includes mounting holes that extend perpendicular to the central housing axis (Figure 1 and 3 in marks show the mounting holes on the left and right sides of the figures, Nisley discloses a pillow block housing and appears to show the feet where the holes are positioned on the bottom of figure 1 as is common in pillow block assemblies).
Regarding claim 4, Nisley in view of Marks discloses that the concave spherical support surface includes a plurality of circumferentially-spaced cutouts (5 of Marks) sized and arranged to allow axial passage of the plurality of circumferentially-spaced convex spherical cogs (the cogs 7 are placed in the recesses and then the bearing turned so that the bearing is seated in the receptacle).
Regarding claim 5, Nisley in view of Marks, while rendering obvious the structure defined by claim 4, does not disclose any specific dimensions and thus does not disclose that an overall axial length L of the bearing unit exceeds a nominal diameter defined between two diametrically-opposed ones of the plurality of circumferentially-spaced cutouts of the bearing receptacle.
Nisley in view of Marks, while showing even spacing between the cutouts only shows three cutouts (Marks 5) that are evenly spaced apart and thus is also not diametrically opposed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the number of cutouts and corresponding lugs to include an even number and preserve the even spacing of the cutouts, since duplicating the number of lugs does not change the function of the device and regardless of the number of lugs the outer ring would still be inserted into the housing and twisted in a manner that arrives at the same assembled product. Ultimately this aspect of the claim only requires additional elements (lugs and cutouts) to the three sets taught by Marks, it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With regards the remaining dimensional requirement of the axial length of the bearing unit exceeding the diameter between the opposed cutouts, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the overall length of the bearing to exceed the diameter between the cutouts as a matter of design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of component (making the bearing unit longer regardless of any particular diameter used). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, using the cog mounting system of Marks allows for any bearing length to be used since the cogs prevent the need of the bearing to be tilted prior to insertion as is common with other one piece spherical bearing housings. Ultimately because of the use of the cog mounting configuration any length of bearing can be used and the bearing will still be insertable and function as intended, in other words being able to change the length (increase it) of the bearing is the benefit of the cog system of the invention and of that disclosed in the prior art, the benefit of the structure does not provide a patentable distinction.
Regarding claim 6, Nisley in view of Marks discloses that a total circumferential span of all the plurality of circumferentially-spaced convex spherical cogs is up
to 180 degrees (Marks discloses an arrangement of 3 cogs and 3 cutouts that are evenly spaced apart and span the same circumferential distance, this allows for the bearing to be inserted in any orientation and because of this there is an even split between the angular span of each feature and thus collective the cogs cover a span of 180 degrees at least in the region of the pitch circle diameter of all the cogs collectively and because of the sloping sides at the apex of the cogs the collective span would be less than 180 degrees which would still meet the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Nisley in view of Marks does not disclose that the plurality of
circumferentially-spaced convex spherical cogs is a group of exactly four evenly-spaced cogs and the plurality of circumferentially-spaced cutouts is a group of exactly four evenly-spaced cutouts.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the number of cutouts and corresponding lugs to include an even number and preserve the even spacing of the cutouts and more specifically exactly four of each, since duplicating the number of lugs does not change the function of the device and regardless of the number of lugs the outer ring would still be inserted into the housing and twisted in a manner that arrives at the same assembled product. Ultimately this aspect of the claim only requires additional elements (lugs and cutouts) to the three sets taught by Marks, it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 8, Nisley in view of Marks, while disclosing openings that are large enough to allow the cogs to pass (this must be the case in Marks) does not disclose that an angular span of each of the plurality of circumferentially-spaced cutouts is 2 to 6 degrees larger than an angular span between adjacent ones of the plurality of circumferentially-spaced cutouts to provide an assembly clearance for axial insertion of the plurality of circumferentially-spaced convex spherical cogs.
First, if Marks is deemed not to have even slightly oversized holes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Nisley in view of Marks and oversize the cutouts relative to the cogs for the predictable result of providing a wider opening to allow for easier insertion of the bearing into the housing. Using wider openings to allow for easier passage of one object through or into another is not a new or novel concept as making the openings smaller prevents insertion and making them the same size generally requires additional force and specific alignment for proper insertion while making the opening slightly larger allows for easier insertion and provides the additional predictable result compensating for machining tolerances when forming the cogs and openings (making the features the same size if the tolerances ranges are at the max for the cogs and the mins for the opening the part would be harder to assembly). With regards to the particular angular range of 2-6 degree larger, it would have been further obvious to one skilled in the art to select this range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art (openings that must be large enough for the parts to pass through), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Nisley further discloses that a fluid fitting (30) connected to the outside surface of the outer ring, wherein the fluid fitting is received within a corresponding pocket of the housing (16, see figure 1 showing the pocket), and a rotational allowance of the bearing unit with respect to the housing is limited by the fluid fitting within the pocket (the amount of movement is limited to where 30 would contact the housing in figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Nisley further discloses that the multiple rows of rolling elements include two oppositely-angled rows of tapered rolling elements (figure 1 shows tapered roller 26 at opposed angles forming an X style double row tapered bearing just like in the instant application).
Regarding claim 11, Nisley discloses a method of assembling a self-aligning tapered roller bearing assembly, the method comprising: providing a bearing unit including an outer ring (18), an inner ring (20), and a plurality of rolling elements (26) situated to provide a rolling interface between the outer ring and the inner ring; providing a housing (16). Nisley is silent with regards to the specifics of the housing and connection between the outer ring and housing and thus does not disclose that the receptacle includes a concave spherical support surface, orienting the bearing unit along a mutual central axis with the housing and in spaced axial relationship with the housing, the bearing unit having a first rotational orientation that aligns a plurality of circumferentially-spaced convex spherical cogs on an outside surface of the outer
ring with a plurality of circumferentially-spaced cutouts in the concave spherical support surface; axially inserting the bearing unit into the interior bearing receptacle along the mutual central axis so that the plurality of circumferentially-spaced convex spherical cogs are received by the plurality of circumferentially-spaced cutouts; and rotating the bearing unit to a second rotational orientation with respect to the housing about the mutual central axis, wherein the plurality of circumferentially-spaced convex spherical
cogs are out of alignment with the plurality of circumferentially-spaced cutouts such that the bearing unit is provided with spherical support about a central point by the concave spherical support surface.
Marks teaches a similar self-alignment bearing configuration wherein the housing element (1) includes a receptacle includes a concave spherical support surface (see figures 3-5 showing the curved surfaces or the surface indicated by 4) configured to tolerate misalignment between the central bearing axis (pivoting as shown in figures 4 and 5) and the central housing axis about a central point, wherein an outside surface of the outer ring (3/11) includes, at a central axial position thereof, a plurality of circumferentially-spaced convex spherical cogs (7), and wherein the housing is not split, such that the interior bearing receptacle is integral and not separable (using the cog system allows for the housing element to remain as one solid piece that is not split and thus the receptacle defined there in is one integral feature that is not separable just like in the instant application) for the purpose of providing a mounting system for the bearing that allows for a very cheap configuration with simple insertion while also preventing the final product from separating (page 1, lines 7-16 and page 2, lines 17-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Nisley and provide a housing and outer ring arrangement with any previously known mounting configuration, including one that has a receptacle that includes a concave spherical support surface configured to tolerate misalignment between the central bearing axis and the central housing axis about a central point, wherein an outside surface of the outer ring includes, at a central axial position thereof, a plurality of circumferentially-spaced convex spherical cogs, and wherein the housing is not split, such that the interior bearing receptacle is integral and not separable, as taught by Marks, for the purpose of providing a mounting system for the bearing that allows for a very cheap configuration with simple insertion while also preventing the final product from separating. In addition, the above modification can be viewed as substituting one known mounting configuration for another that provides the predictable result securing the bearing components together, as Marks demonstrates that the mounting system is not new, novel or inventive, claim 1 as a whole is not inventive.
The structure taught by Marks is the configuration that allows for the bearing to be oriented to align with the housing in a manner that allows for axial inserting and then rotating the bearing to lock it in place within the housing, this is the same structure used in the instant application and thus the specific method steps used to assemble the same structure are also obvious for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 12, the configuration of three cogs taught by Marks results in an angular rotation of about 66 degrees to move the bearing from the first orientation to the second orientation. Thus Marks does not discloses a total rotation angle of about 45 degrees.
However, the degree of rotation required is dependent on the number of cogs used. As stated above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the number of cutouts and corresponding lugs to include an even number and preserve the even spacing of the cutouts, since duplicating the number of lugs does not change the function of the device and regardless of the number of lugs the outer ring would still be inserted into the housing and twisted in a manner that arrives at the same assembled product. It has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would have been further obvious to use the specific number of four for the same reason above and thus resulting in a method that requires approximately an angular rotation of 45 degrees to fully engage the bearing with the housing.
Regarding claim 13, Nisley further discloses installing a fluid fitting (30) to the outside surface of the outer ring through a pocket in the housing (see figure 1), wherein the installation of the fluid fitting blocks rotation of the bearing unit to the first rotational orientation (the amount of movement of the bearing is limited to 30 contacting the pocket that it is in).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nisley, USP 5,908,248, in view of Marks GB132166, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Struttmann, USP 3,977,740.
Regarding claim 3, Nisley in view of Marks both disclose a standard pillow block unit with mounting features that run perpendicular to the central axis and thus does not disclose that the housing includes mounting holes that extend parallel to the central housing axis.
Struttmann teaches a known alternative to a standard pillow block mount (Struttmann also discloses the standard pillow block system in figure 1) that includes a housing (at 72 in figure 5) that includes mounting holes (82) that extend parallel to the central housing axis (both axis extend into the page in figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nisley in view of Marks and use the bearing system in the known alternate mounting configuration where the mounting holes are parallel to the axis, as taught by Struttmann, since substituting between different known mounting configurations provides the predictable result of allowing the bearing to be mounted to another device that allows the bearing to remain functional while providing a configuration that does not interfere with the overall operation of the larger device.
Conclusion
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