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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the third extension (clm 6) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11-15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states that the radial outer surfaces of the extensions “narrow” towards a center of the cage, however the surfaces themselves don’t “narrow”. Instead the surfaces are tapered or inclined toward the center of the bearing in a direction away from the main body. Alternative phrasing should be used that is more consistent with what is shown and disclosed, language like “taper” found in new claim 11 can be used or other phrases like sloped or inclined, should be used.
Claim 6 uses “narrows” in a similar manner and should be amended in a manner consistent with claim 1.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 12-15 and 17, line 1, “on” should be - -in- -.
Claim 11, line 16, “on” should be - -in- -.
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, 5, 8, 13, 15 and 17 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.
The term “complete curve” in claims 3, 8, 13 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term, while defined in the specification at paragraph 0029, is defined using a relative term “smoother transition” which in turn is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, since the definition of the term “complete curve” is defined/explained in the specification using a relative term the phrasing as presented in the claim is also relative. What types of transitions are considered “smoother” and what is the comparison for defining “smoother”?
Claims 5 and 15 state that a circle centered on the cage is provided, however it is first unclear if this is structure, if so where is the circle, or if this is meant to reference a reference or imaginary circle. Second, assuming that this is defining and imaginary reference feature of the bearing, the bearing is a three dimensional object and it is unknown from the claim how the two dimensional object of a circle is being oriented and thus the claim would appear to be incomplete for lacking necessary relative orientation/positioning/location elements that would allow one skilled in the art to know what Applicant is specifically stating that the bearing assembly must satisfy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Honjo, JP2014202247.
Regarding claim 1, Honjo discloses a bearing, comprising an outer ring (3), an inner ring (2), a rolling element (4) and a cage (5), wherein the cage (5) comprises: a main body portion (10), which is annular (see figure 2); and a plurality of extension portions (20), which are arranged on a side surface of the main body portion (see figure 2), wherein a pocket (7) for accommodating the rolling element (4) is defined by two of the extension portions (20) adjacent to each other and a part (11) of the main body portion (10) between the two of the extension portions (20); and, and wherein each of the extension portions (20) comprises a first extension section (53) and a second extension section (54/55), the first extension section (53) is connected to the main body portion (10), the second extension section (54/55) is connected to the first extension section (53), and outer radial surfaces of the first extension section (53) and the second extension section (54/55) both narrow [taper] towards a center of the cage in a direction away from the main body portion (see figure 5, see paragraph 0035 of the translation provided by Applicant stating that all sections 53-55 have an inclination).
Regarding claim 2, Honjo discloses that on a cross-section, the profile of the outer radial surface of the first extension section is a curve or a straight line, and the profile of the outer radial surface of the second extension section is a curve or a straight line (each section is curved in figure 5, paragraph 0034 further states that all of the guide surface 52 (made of 53-55) can be straight and paragraph 0035 addresses a curve thus both alternatives are anticipated by Honjo).
Regarding claim 3, Honjo discloses that the profile of the outer radial surface of the first extension section (53) and the profile of the outer radial surface of the second extension section (54/55) form a complete curve (a complete curve being one smooth, non-point/edge, transitions between adjacent sections, this is shown in figure 5 of Honjo).
Regarding claim 4, Honjo discloses that on a radial cross-section, an end point of the profile of an outer radial surface of the main body portion away from the extension portion is represented by P1', the intersection of the profile of the outer radial surface of the main body portion and the profile of the outer radial surface of the first extension section is represented by P2', the intersection of the profile of the outer radial surface of the first extension section and the profile of the outer radial surface of the second extension section is represented by P3', and the end point of the profile of the outer radial surface of the second extension section away from the main body portion is represented by P4'; and the angle between the line connecting P2' and P3' and the profile of the outer radial surface of the main body portion is smaller than the angle between the line connecting P3' and P4' and the profile of the outer radial surface of the main body portion (P1’-P4’ can be applied to Honjo at the same general locations, specifically P1’ would be the left side of the main body, P2’ would be on the left side of 53 in figure 5, P3’ would be between 53 and 54 and P4’ would be on the right hand side of 54 or could include the region 55 and be positioned at 26, the disclosure of Honjo further states that within each region the inclination angle changes with 53 being the smallest, 54 the middle and 55 the largest angle, see at least paragraphs 0034-0036, thus meeting the relative relationship requirement recited by the claim).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood and assuming that Applicant is referencing the dashed line that follows the radius R, Honjo discloses that a circle is centered on the center of the cage and passes through P2', and P1', P3', and P4' are all located inside the circle (a circle with a radius defined by P2’ or the left side of 53 would define a circle that encompasses P3’ and P4’ as these points would be shifted radially inside of the inscribed circle because of the inclination angle of each region). See alternative rejection under 35 USC 103 below.
Regarding claim 6, Honjo discloses that the extension portion (20) further comprises a third extension section (55 can be viewed as a third distinct section), which is connected to the second extension section (54), and an outer radial surface of the third extension section extends from a suspended an end of the second extension section and narrows towards the center of the cage in the direction away from the main body portion (further tapers radially inward).
Regarding claim 7, Honjo discloses that on a same-radial cross-section, the profile of the outer radial surface of the first extension section (53) is a curve or a straight line, the profile of the outer radial surface of the second extension section (54) is a curve or a straight line, and the profile of the outer radial surface of the third extension section (55) is a curve or a straight line (each section is curved in figure 5, paragraph 0034 further states that all of the guide surface 52 (made of 53-55) can be straight and paragraph 0035 addresses a curve thus both alternatives are anticipated by Honjo).
Regarding claim 8, Honjo discloses that the profile of the outer radial surface of the first extension section (53), the profile of the outer radial surface of the second extension section (54), and the profile of the outer radial surface of the third extension section (55) form a complete curve (a complete curve being one smooth, non-point/edge, transitions between adjacent sections, this is shown in figure 5 of Honjo).
Regarding claim 9, Honjo disclose that the extension portion (20) is provided on each of two side surfaces of the main body portion (see figure 1, the two separate cages when combined can be viewed as defining one unit with a main body made of the two elements 10, the claim does not require a unitary one piece cage).
Regarding claim 10, Honjo discloses that a midpoint of the profile of an outer radial surface of the main body portion is represented by P1, on any one of the two side surfaces of the main body portion, the intersection of the profile of the outer radial surface of the main body portion and the profile of the outer radial surface of the first extension section is represented by P2, the intersection of the profile of the outer radial surface of the first extension section and the profile of the outer radial surface of the second extension section is represented by P3, and the end point of the profile of the outer radial surface of the second extension section away from the main body portion is represented by P4, and wherein the angle between the line connecting P2 and P3 and the profile of the outer radial surface of the main body portion is smaller than the angle between the line connecting P3 and P4 and the profile of the outer radial surface of the main body portion (P1-P4 can be applied to Honjo at the same general locations, P1 can be the middle of the cage assembly, P2 would be on the left side of 53 in figure 5, P3 would be between 53 and 54 and P4 would be on the right hand side of 54 or could include the region 55 and be positioned at 26, the disclosure of Honjo further states that within each region the inclination angle changes with 53 being the smallest, 54 the middle and 55 the largest angle, see at least paragraphs 0034-0036, thus meeting the relative relationship requirement recited by the claim).
Regarding claim 11, Honjo discloses a bearing, comprising: an outer ring (3); an inner ring (2); a plurality of rolling elements (4) disposed between the outer ring and the inner ring; and a cage (5) retaining and spacing the plurality of rolling elements, the cage comprising: an annular main body (10) having opposite axial side faces; and a plurality of axially-projecting extension portions (20) provided on at least one of the axial side faces of the main body, wherein adjacent ones of the extension portions (20) cooperate with an intervening portion (11) of the main body to define a pocket (7) that receives at least one of the plurality of rolling elements (4), wherein each extension portion (20) comprises: a first extension section (53) fixed to and extending axially from the main body; and a second extension section (54/55) fixed to and extending axially from the first extension section (53) toward a free end of the extension portion that is distal from the main body, wherein, on a radial cross-section of the cage, an outer radial surface of the first extension section and an outer radial surface of the second extension section each taper radially inward toward a center axis of the cage as the first and second extension sections extend axially away from the main body, such that a radial dimension of the extension portion decreases in successive steps from the main body toward the free end of the extension portion (see figure 5, see at least paragraphs 0034-0036 of the translation provided by Applicant stating that all sections 53-55 have an inclination and each increases more than the next, each region can further be viewed as defining a step just like in the instant application).
Regarding claim 12, Honjo discloses that on the radial cross-section, the outer radial surface of at least one of the first extension section and the second extension section is a straight line (paragraph 0034 further states that all of the guide surface 52 (made of 53-55) can be straight).
Regarding claim 13, Honjo discloses that on the radial cross-section, the outer radial surfaces of the first and second extension sections together form a complete curve (a complete curve being one smooth, non-point/edge, transitions between adjacent sections, this is shown in figure 5 of Honjo).
Regarding claim 14, Honjo discloses that on the radial cross-section, the outer radial surface of the second extension section tapers toward the center axis at an angle that is greater than an angle that the outer radial surface of the first extension section tapers toward the center axis (see paragraphs 0034-0036 that discloses that the inclination changes in each section, specifically increasing or becoming greater the closer to the free end of the extension the region is).
Regarding claim 15, Honjo, as best understood, discloses that on the radial cross-section, a circle centered on the center axis of the cage and passing through an intersection of an outer radial surface of the main body and the outer radial surface of the first extension section encloses an axial midpoint of the outer radial surface of the main body, an intersection of the outer radial surface of the first extension section and the outer radial surface of the second extension section, and an end point of the outer radial surface of the second extension section that is axially distal from the first extension section (as explained in the rejection of claim 5, a circle with a radius defined by P2’ or the left side of 53 would define a circle that encompasses P3’ and P4’ as these points would be shifted radially inside of the inscribed circle because of the inclination angle of each region). See alternative rejection under 35 USC 103 below.
Regarding claim 16, Honjo discloses that each extension portion further comprises: a third extension section (55) joined to the second extension section (54), an outer radial surface of the third extension section tapering radially inward toward the center axis as the third extension section extends axially away from the main body (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 17, Honjo discloses that on the radial cross-section, the outer radial surfaces of the first, second, and third sections together form a complete curve (a complete curve being one smooth, non-point/edge, transitions between adjacent sections, this is shown in figure 5 of Honjo).
Regarding claim 18, Honjo discloses that extension portions are provided on both axial side faces of the main body, such that the cage is configured to retain two rows of the rolling elements (see figure 1, the two separate cages when combined can be viewed as defining one unit with a main body made of the two elements 10, the claim does not require a unitary one piece cage).
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) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honjo, JP2014202247.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the imaginary or inscribed circle defining the cage as a whole is dependent on the overall diameter of the bearing, as this increase the circle defined therein becomes larger. Because of this the larger the bearing is made the more points along the axial extensions would fall within the circle since the circle will become larger. Thus, the recitations of claims 5 and 15 can ultimately be dependent on the overall size of the bearing relative to the axial length of the arms, if all else is kept constant but the diameter of the bearing increases the resulting device would meet the limitations of the claims. Therefore, because of this, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of effective filing to increase the size/diameter of the bearing, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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). With increasing size the curvature illustrated in figure 5 of Honjo along the extension defines a smaller radius relative to the radius of the cage as a whole thus placing the points along the extension within a circle defined by the radius of the cage.
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
