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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species A, Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10-12, 14, 16, 21, 23-27, and 44-45 in the reply filed on 1/22/26 is acknowledged.
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 1-4, 6-7, 10-12 and 44-45 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.
With respect to claims 1 and 44, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the bearing body” (claim 1- line 3; claim 44- line 4) since bearing body has not been previously defined. It is unclear what actual structure is meant by bearing body? Applicant’s original specification does not point out what is implied by bearing body in any figure. The recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims are taken to mean: positioning a braze material on the bearing elements or the bearing ring, clamping the bearing elements and the bearing ring together; while clamping, brazing the bearing elements onto the bearing ring. Appropriate correction is requested.
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, 6, 21, 23-27 and 44 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, see attached document, 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 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).
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).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Meng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (CN 117600601 A, see attached document, “Yao”).
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 because doing so would enable to provide heat to multiple bearing elements being brazed to the bearing ring. Thus, Peterson, Meng & Yao 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12, 14, 16 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 and amended to correct 112 rejection noted above.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner notes that the Applicant has listed a large number of documents for consideration in the information disclosure statements submitted in this application. As noted in MPEP 2001.05, if information is not material, there is no duty to disclose the information to the Office. Information is not material unless it comes within the definition of 37 CFR 1.56(b)(1) or (2). As noted in MPEP 2004 (Section 13), it is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. It is suggested that applicants eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant' s attention and/or are known to be of most significance.
Consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means that the examiner has considered the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search, MPEP 609.05(b). Foreign language documents have been considered for relevance in light of information provided by applicant under guidelines in MPEP 609.04(a)(III). It is noted that 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) also requires a concise explanation of the relevance regarding the content of the IDS. In the present case, the submitted copious foreign and NPL references have not been described with respect to the present invention to permit consideration of the relevance.
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