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 .
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.
Claims 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sexton et al. (US 9188158, hereafter “Sexton”).
Regarding claims 49-50, Sexton discloses a method of securing a bearing element to a bearing ring (figs. 1-7, col. 3, lines 1-12), the method comprising: positioning a plurality of bearing elements 134 on a bearing race of a bearing ring 132 (figs. 4-6); positioning a braze material on the bearing ring (part of brazing- col. 5, lines 1-10; 35-45); clamping the bearing elements and the bearing ring together using a fixture 100 (fig. 1-3; col. 5, lines 11-24); wherein the clamping comprises positioning the bearing ring and the bearing element on a base plate; positioning a braze cap over the bearing ring and the bearing element such that the bearing ring and bearing element are positioned between the braze cap and the base plate (see fig. 6 below); positioning a force applicator 106 on the braze cap; and forcing the braze cap toward to base plate with the force applicator, wherein forcing the braze cap toward the base plate clamps the bearing element and the bearing ring together; and while clamping, brazing the bearing element onto the bearing ring (col. 6, line 40 thru col. 7, line 25).
PNG
media_image1.png
742
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 51, Sexton discloses that the force is applied to the bearing element throughout an entirety of the brazing by the force applicator (figs. 4-6).
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 1-4, 6, 21, 23-27, 44 and 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 8646981, hereafter “Peterson”) in view of Meng et al. (CN 109930048 B, of record, hereafter “Meng”).
Regarding claims 1 and 44, Peterson discloses a method of securing bearing elements to a bearing ring (figs. 8, 11-13), the method comprising: positioning a plurality of bearing elements 178-180 (PCD- polycrystalline diamond- col. 13, lines 58-60) on a bearing race of a bearing ring 140 (see figs. 12-13); positioning a braze material on the bearing ring (part of brazing- col. 12, lines 40-55; col. 14, lines 35-45); clamping the bearing elements and the bearing ring together using a fixture 192 (col. 15, lines 5-12, 41-52); while clamping, brazing the bearing elements onto the bearing ring, wherein the brazing comprises applying heat to the bearing elements, the braze material and the bearing ring, wherein the heat at least partially melts the braze material (col. 15, lines 5-15). Concerning applying a force during clamping & brazing, Peterson teaches that the bearing elements and the bearing ring/layer are held in place during joining by use of proper fixtures and by appropriate application of force to the components of the bearing assembly (col. 14, lines 43-46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a force to the bearing elements such the bearing elements are forced toward the bearing ring while clamping in order to ensure proper alignment and braze joint integrity, as suggested by Peterson.
Peterson does not specifically mention whether brazing is done using flame of a burner to apply heat, however, such technique is known in the art. Analogous to Peterson, Meng is directed to embedding PCD (polycrystalline diamond) material (bearing element) in preparing a bearing for good wear- resistance and toughness, in particular a radial bearing (abstract). Meg teaches attaching the PCD material to the bearing substrate by flame brazing to obtain coated PCD thrust bearing, which has good wear-resistance, and high-temperature resistance suitable for bearing application (example 10- [0125-0127]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ flames of a burner in the brazing method of Peterson in order to apply desired heat to melt the braze material, thereby producing a bearing ring having good wear-resistance.
As to claim 2, Peterson as modified by Meng in claim 1 above discloses using a plurality of flames of the burner that are directed toward the bearing ring for flame brazing bearing elements onto the bearing ring.
As to claims 3-4, there is only a finite number of predictable options for applying heat during the flame brazing in combination of Peterson & Meng: to rotate the bearing ring & bearing elements relative to a static burner, or alternatively, rotate the burner flames around the bearing ring. In either case, the objective is to ensure that sufficient heat is directed to melt the brazing material for reliable bonding. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason (ensure sufficient heat is directed to melt the brazing material) to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
As to claim 6, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to perform the flame brazing in Peterson & Meng under vacuum with a motivation to avoid oxidation either on the bearing elements or the bearing ring.
As to claim 21, secondary steps such as grinding, polishing or machining the brazed elements depend on final design of the bearing ring product. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that carrying out grinding/machining or polishing is optional and within purview of desired target product. Therefore, claim is rendered obvious in the combination of Peterson & Meng.
As to claim 23, Meng teaches that brazing temperature is preferably in a range of 400-800 °C [0073], the control of the brazing temperature within less than 750 °C is necessary so as to reduce the graphitization of the polycrystalline diamond layer in the bearing element [0075]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to monitor and control temperature of the bearing ring & the bearing elements during the flame brazing in order to avoid graphitization of the polycrystalline diamond in the bearing elements.
As to claims 24-25, Peterson discloses the bearing elements 178-180 comprise polycrystalline diamond compacts (col. 13, lines 58-60), where the bearing elements are brazed within sockets of the bearing ring 140 (figs. 11-13).
As to claims 26-27, there is only a finite number of predictable options for positioning the brazing material in Peterson: place braze material outside of the sockets of the bearing ring, place braze material inside of the sockets between the elements and the bearing ring; or alternatively place some braze material on both inside and outside. In any scenario, the objective is to ensure that sufficient braze material is present for reliable bonding. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason (ensure sufficient brazing material) to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
As to claims 46-48, Peterson discloses applying a seating force/pressing the bearing element(s) toward the bearing ring. It is noted that even small force/pressure is sufficient since the claims are not limited by specific amount.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-11, 16, 21, 23-27, 44 and 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sexton et al. (US 9188158, “Sexton”) in view of Meng et al. (CN 109930048 B, of record, hereafter “Meng”).
Regarding claims 1 and 44, Sexton discloses a method of securing bearing elements to a bearing ring (figs. 1-7, col. 3, lines 1-12), the method comprising: positioning a plurality of bearing elements 134 on a bearing race of a bearing ring 132 (figs. 4-6); positioning a braze material on the bearing ring (part of brazing- col. 5, lines 1-10; 35-45); clamping the bearing elements and the bearing ring together using a fixture 100 (fig. 1-3; col. 5, lines 11-24), wherein the clamping comprises applying a force by pushrods 106 to the bearing elements 134 such that the bearing elements are forced toward the bearing ring 132 (figs. 5-6; col. 7, lines 10-25); while clamping, brazing the bearing elements onto the bearing ring, wherein the brazing comprises applying heat to the bearing elements, the braze material and the bearing ring, wherein the heat at least partially melts the braze material (col. 6, line 40 thru col. 7, line 25).
Sexton does not specifically mention brazing using flame of a burner to apply heat, however, Sexton is open to any suitable heating mechanism known to those of ordinary skill in the art (col. 6, lines 55-61). Analogous to Sexton, Meng is directed to embedding PCD (polycrystalline diamond) material (bearing element) in preparing a bearing for good wear- resistance and toughness, in particular a radial bearing (abstract). Meg teaches attaching the PCD material to the bearing substrate by flame brazing to obtain coated PCD thrust bearing, which has good wear-resistance, and high-temperature resistance suitable for bearing application (example 10- [0125-0127]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ flames of a burner in the brazing method of Sexton in order to apply necessary heat to melt the braze material, given that any heating mechanism is acceptable to Sexton.
As to claim 2, Sexton as modified by Meng in claim 1 above discloses using a plurality of flames of the burner that are directed toward the bearing ring for flame brazing bearing elements onto the bearing ring.
As to claims 3-4, there is only a finite number of predictable options for applying heat during the flame brazing in combination of Sexton & Meng: to rotate the bearing ring & bearing elements relative to a static burner, or alternatively, rotate the burner flames around the bearing ring. In either case, the objective is to ensure that sufficient heat is directed to melt the brazing material for reliable bonding. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason (ensure sufficient heat is directed to melt the brazing material) to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
As to claim 6, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to perform the flame brazing in Sexton & Meng under vacuum with a motivation to avoid oxidation either on the bearing elements or the bearing ring.
As to claim 10, Sexton shows that clamping comprises: positioning the bearing ring and the bearing elements on a base plate; positioning a braze cap over the bearing ring and the bearing elements such that the bearing ring and bearing elements are positioned between the braze cap and the base plate; positioning a force applicator on the braze cap; and forcing the braze cap toward to base plate with the force applicator, wherein forcing the braze cap toward the base plate clamps the elements and the bearing ring together (see fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
742
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 11, Sexton shows that the force applicator comprises a spring 110 positioned on the braze cap such that the braze cap is positioned between the spring and the bearing ring and bearing elements, and wherein the forcing comprises compressing the spring (see fig. 6 and corresponding description).
As to claim 16, Sexton discloses that the bearing elements are thrust bearing elements (col. 4, lines 53-64), and wherein a bottom surface of the braze cap is engaged with a top surface of the thrust bearing elements during the forcing (figs. 4-6).
As to claim 21, secondary steps such as grinding, polishing or machining the brazed elements depend on final design of the bearing ring product. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that carrying out grinding/machining or polishing is optional and within purview of desired target product. Therefore, claim is rendered obvious in the combination of Sexton & Meng.
As to claim 23, Meng teaches that brazing temperature is preferably in a range of 400-800 °C [0073], the control of the brazing temperature within less than 750 °C is necessary so as to reduce the graphitization of the polycrystalline diamond layer in the bearing element [0075]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to monitor and control temperature of the bearing ring & the bearing elements during the flame brazing in order to avoid graphitization of the polycrystalline diamond in the bearing elements.
As to claims 24-25, Sexton discloses the bearing elements 134 comprise polycrystalline diamond compacts (col. 3, lines 60-67), where the bearing elements are brazed within sockets 136 of the bearing ring 132 (figs. 4-6).
As to claims 26-27, there is only a finite number of predictable options for positioning the brazing material in Sexton: place braze material outside of the sockets of the bearing ring, place braze material inside of the sockets between the elements and the bearing ring; or alternatively place some braze material on both inside and outside. In any scenario, the objective is to ensure that sufficient braze material is present for reliable bonding. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason (ensure sufficient brazing material) to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
As to claims 46-48, Sexton discloses applying a seating force/pressing the bearing element(s) toward the bearing ring using force applicator 106 (figs. 5-6). It is noted that even small force/pressure is sufficient since the claims are not limited by specific amount.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Meng OR Sexton in view of Meng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (CN 117600601 A, “Yao”, of record).
As to claim 7, Meng discloses flame brazing, but fails to show burner comprising a generally ring-shaped gas manifold. However, such arrangement is known. Yao (drawn to automatic brazing process for heat exchangers- abstract) teaches a brazing process operating table 1 with operating plate 5 (fig. 1) comprises a burner including a generally ring-shaped gas manifold B (ring 20) fluidly coupled with a supply of a gas/air mixture 22 (fuel barrel), wherein multiple flame guns 28 (fig. 4) are rotatably connected and positioned to direct flames from the guns toward the workpieces for brazing (figs. 4-5). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a ring-shape gas burner with multiple flame guns similar to Yao in the flame brazing method of Peterson & Meng OR Sexton & Meng because doing so would enable to provide heat to multiple bearing elements being brazed to the bearing ring. Thus, prior art combination collectively discloses a burner with a generally ring-shaped gas manifold and multiple flame guns, wherein the bearing ring and bearing elements are positioned in an annulus of the ring-shaped gas manifold during the flame brazing, and the plurality of flame nozzles are positioned to direct the flames toward the bearing ring & elements.
Claims 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 8646981).
Regarding claims 50-51, Peterson discloses a method of securing bearing elements to a bearing ring (figs. 8, 11-13), the method comprising: positioning a plurality of bearing elements 178-180 (PCD- polycrystalline diamond- col. 13, lines 58-60) on a bearing race of a bearing ring 140 (see figs. 12-13); positioning a braze material on the bearing ring (part of brazing- col. 12, lines 40-55; col. 14, lines 35-45); clamping the bearing elements and the bearing body together using a fixture 192 (col. 15, lines 5-12, 41-52); while clamping, brazing the bearing elements onto the bearing ring, wherein the brazing comprises applying heat to the bearing elements, the braze material and the bearing ring, wherein the heat at least partially melts the braze material (col. 15, lines 5-15). Concerning applying a force during clamping & brazing, Peterson teaches that the bearing elements and the bearing ring/layer are held in place during joining by use of proper fixtures and by appropriate application of force to the components of the bearing assembly (col. 14, lines 43-46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a force to the bearing elements such the bearing elements are forced toward the bearing ring while clamping through entirety of brazing in order to ensure proper alignment and braze joint integrity, as suggested by Peterson.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 14 and 45 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(s).
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reasons. The 103 rejection under Peterson has been elaborated in light of recent amendment to claim 1. Examiner further notes that new rejection is made using new reference of Sexton.
With respect to Peterson, Applicant argues that it is clear from fig. 13C and the description thereof that fixture 192 does not force the bearing element toward the bearing ring. In fact, Peterson expresses no desire to force the bearing elements and bearing ring together. Rather, Peterson merely uses fixture 192 so that the bearing elements are held in position and in alignment during brazing.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Peterson in fact desires to provide force: bearing elements and the bearing ring/layer are held in place during joining by use of proper fixtures and by appropriate application of force to the components of the bearing assembly (col. 14, lines 43-46).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/20/26, 5/15/26 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights