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 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, “rolling elements (4)” should be changed to –rolling elements--.
In claim 3, line 2, “the TiN layer (13)” should be changed to –the TiN layer--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki (JP 2004332899 A) in view of Krishnamurthy (US 20070099027 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nozaki discloses (in fig. 1) a rolling bearing (fig. 1)comprising:
bearing rings (1, 2);
rolling elements (3) which roll between the bearing rings (1, 2);
and a coated cage (4) which guides the rolling elements (3),
a coating (5) of the coated cage (4) is produced in as a single layer and comprises a electroless nickel composite plating layer (5 and para. [0028] discloses the layer can made out of nickel, tetrafluoroethylene resin powder, and phosphorus) as a first layer (5),
the electroless nickel composite plating layer (5) covering a main part of the coated cage (4) which is made of a non-ferrous metal (para. [0021] disclose the cage can be made out aluminum metal or brass, which are non-ferrous metal).
Nozaki does not disclose the coating produced in multiple layers and comprises NiP as the first layer and a TiN layer is a cover layer.
Krishnamurthy teaches (in fig. 6) the coating produced in multiple layers and comprises NiP as the first layer (118, para. [0031] teaches nickel coatings with phosphorus additive as the hard backing 118, which is NiP) and a TiN layer is a cover layer (120, para. [0031] teaches there is a plurality of nanolayers and that TiN can be one of the nanolayers for the purpose of higher hardness and better wear resistance (para. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the coating producing in multiple layers with NiP as the first layer and TiN as part of the cover layer, as taught by Krishnamurthy, in the rolling bearing of Nozaki for the purpose of higher hardness and better wear resistance (para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 2, Nozaki in view of Krishnamurthy teaches the rolling bearing of claim 1, wherein the NiP layer (Krishnamurthy 118) has a thickness of 2 µm to 30 µm (Nozaki para. [0027] discloses that the thickness can be 2 µm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the NiP layer to have a thickness of 2 µm to 30 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ. 47.
Regarding claim 3, Nozaki in view of Krishnamurthy teaches the rolling bearing of claim 1 but does not disclose the TiN layer has a thickness of 0.5 µm to 10 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the TiN layer to have a thickness of 0.5 µm to 10 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ. 47.
Regarding claim 9, Nozaki teaches a method for producing a rolling bearing cage, the method comprising: depositing a nickel-containing layer on a non-ferrous metal main part of the cage in an electroless process (para. [0013] disclose that electroless nickel composite is applied on the metal cage and para. [0021] disclose the cage can be made out aluminum metal or brass, which are non-ferrous metal).
Nozaki does not teach applying a cover layer of titanium nitride on the nickel-containing layer.
Krishnamurthy teaches (in fig. 6) applying a cover layer of titanium nitride on the nickel-containing layer (para. [0028-0029] discloses that the nano layer 120 contains titanium nitride and it is applied on the nickel-containing backing layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a cover layer of titanium nitride on the nickel-containing layer, as taught by Krishnamurthy, in the rolling bearing of Nozaki for the purpose of higher hardness and better wear resistance (para. [0033]).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki (JP 2004332899 A) in view of Krishnamurthy (US 20070099027 A1) and in further view of Hosenfeldt (DE 102006057484 B4).
Regarding claim 4, Nozaki in view of Krishnamurthy teaches the rolling bearing of claim 1, but does not teach at least one of the bearing rings has a carbon-containing coating.
Hosenfeldt teaches at least one of the bearing rings has a carbon-containing coating
Hosenfeldt teaches at least one of the bearing rings has a carbon-containing coating (para. [0037]) discloses that the bearing rings is provided with a metal-containing amorphous hydrocarbon layer, which contains carbon and para. [0034] discloses that the metal can be tungsten) for the purpose of having an extremely tough yet resistant, well-adhering and hard layer, so that the resulting rolling bearing can withstand high mechanical loads with low wear (para. [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one of the rolling rings have a carbon-containing coating, as taught by Hosenfeldt, in the rolling bearing of Nozaki in view of Krishnamurthy for the purpose of having an extremely tough yet resistant, well-adhering and hard layer, so that the resulting rolling bearing can withstand high mechanical loads with low wear (para. [0034]). It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis for its suitability for the intended uses as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5, Nozaki in view of Krishnamurthy teaches the rolling bearing of claim 1, but does not teach the rolling elements are provided with carbon-containing coating.
Hosenfeldt teaches the rolling elements are provided with carbon-containing coating (para. [0037]) discloses that the rolling elements is provided with a metal-containing amorphous hydrocarbon layer, which contains carbon) for the purpose of having a an extremely tough yet resistant, well-adhering and hard layer, so that the resulting rolling bearing can withstand high mechanical loads with low wear (para. [0034]). It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis for its suitability for the intended uses as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the rolling elements be provided with a carbon-containing coating, as taught by Hosenfeldt, in the rolling bearing of Nozaki in view of Krishnamurthy for the purpose of having a an extremely tough yet resistant, well-adhering and hard layer, so that the resulting rolling bearing can withstand high mechanical loads with low wear (para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Nozaki in view of Krishnamurthy and in further view of Hosenfeldt teaches the rolling bearing of claim 4, wherein a-C:H:W is provided as the carbon-containing coating (Hosenfeldt para. [0034] discloses the metal-containing amorphous hydrocarbon layer can contain tungsten, which would make it a-C:H:W).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki (JP 2004332899 A) in view of Krishnamurthy (US 20070099027 A1) and in further view of Loof (US 20160298686 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Nozaki in view of Krishnamurthy teaches the rolling bearing of claim 1, wherein the cage is designed as a solid brass cage (Nozaki para. [0021] discloses the cage can be made out of brass) but does not disclose the cage is in a form of a comb cage.
Loof teaches the cage is in a form of a comb cage (para. [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rolling bearing of Nozaki in view of Krishnamurthy with the comb cage of Loof, since such a modification is a matter of substituting between one known cage and another known cage to achieve the predictable result of supporting the rolling elements of a bearing.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki (JP 2004332899 A) in view of Krishnamurthy (US 20070099027 A1) and in further view of Abreu (US 20190257294 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Nozaki in view of Krishnamurthy teaches the rolling bearing of claim 1 but does not teach that it is designed as a spherical rolling bearing.
Abreu teaches the rolling bearing can be a spherical rolling bearing (para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rolling bearing of Nozaki in view of Krishnamurthy with the spherical roller bearing of Abreu, since such a modification is a matter of substituting between one known rolling bearing and another rolling bearing to achieve the predictable result of supporting smooth rotational or linear movement and reduce friction between moving parts.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki (JP 2004332899 A) in view of Krishnamurthy (US 20070099027 A1) and in further view of Musayev (US 20180127869 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nozaki in view of Krishnamurthy teaches the method of claim 9 but does not disclose the cover layer is applied by a PACVD process.
Musayev teaches the cover layer is applied by a PACVD process for the purpose of improving wear resistance and reduction in friction of the coating components (para. [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cover layer be applied by a PACVD process, as taught by Musayev, in the method of Nozaki in view of Krishnamurthy for the purpose of improving wear resistance and reduction in friction of the coating components (para. [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIMEE T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 EST.
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.
/AIMEE TRAN NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights