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
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) 1-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanz, GB2521391.
Regarding claim 1, Sanz discloses a rolling element (140) for a rolling bearing, the rolling element comprising: a body having a running surface (outer surface of 150), the running surface being provided with at least one marking (155) configured to identify the rolling element. NOTE: the disclosure of Sanz as a whole is directed toward providing identification marks that are hidden or not visible to counterfeiters so that a genuine part can be identified. The disclosure as a whole covers a number of different variations in the concept from hiding an identification mark below the surface or using one that is only visible under specific conditions, these marks can be used across the whole spectrum of bearing parts disclosed in the applicant and thus the disclosure as a whole anticipates, or at the very least render obvious, the idea as disclosed in the instant application which is providing a readable code, QR code, to the bearing element. The citations below reference the different marking concepts disclosed, however its taking the context of the disclosure as a whole which renders the claims as anticipated and/or obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Sanz discloses that the marking includes at least one notch (157) in the running surface of the rolling element body.
Regarding claim 3, Sanz discloses that the at least one marking includes a plurality of notches in the running surface of the rolling element body (Sanz discloses that a number of different identification marks can be used, including barcodes 125 that are later filled with a different material, page 8, lines 1-26, in order for the barcode to be filled with a different material it must be first be printed leaving a plurality of notches that can later be filled, the disclosure of Sanz as a whole covers the concept of an identification mark in a bearing element made of a plurality of notches, Applicant specifically uses a QR code, however a barcode is an early version of a QR code and with the advancement of technology, if later claimed, a QR code would be anticipated or obvious in view of the disclosure by Sanz).
Regarding claim 4, Sanz discloses that the plurality of notches of the marking are all located within an area of the running surface having a predetermined size (in all examples provided by Sanz the identification mark, regardless of what it actually is, is located in a predetermined area on the rolling element).
Regarding claim 5, Sanz discloses that each one of the plurality of notches is filled with a filler material, the filler material being different than a material of the rolling element (in describing the use of a barcode Sanz further discloses using a contrasting feature, see page 8, lines 1-19, Sanz further discloses using a wide variety of different filler type material in the printing process, see page 4, line 24-page 5, line 14).
Regarding claim 6, Sanz discloses that the filler material includes at least one of a solid lubricant, a contrast agent and a fluorescent material (a different color would be considered a contrast agent, however Sanz also discloses a variety of other alternatives to provide a distinction so the code is visible, including materials visible under specific lighting (forms of fluorescent materials), see page 3 lines 1-17).
Regarding claim 7, Sanz discloses that the at least one marking is a two-dimensional code (the identification number is a form of a two-dimensional code).
Regarding claim 8, Sanz discloses that the at least one marking is readable optically, electronically, magnetically, by interferometry, and/or by spectroscopy (the number can be optically read, Sanz also discloses that the mark can include an identification chip, or a magnetic identification mark, see page 2, lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 9, Sanz discloses that the rolling element is formed of a ceramic material (see page 6, lines 11-16).
Regarding claim 11, Sanz discloses that the at least one marking is configured to identify a rolling bearing, a set of rolling elements, and/or an individual rolling element (the use of the codes/identification marks in Sanz is to identify the bearing or parts thereof apart from counterfeit parts, see at least page 4, lines 1-8, in addition the claim is defining the purpose of the marking, the purpose of the marking does not alter the structure of the bearing itself).
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shinichi, JP2008-25731.
Regarding claim 1, Shinichi discloses a rolling element (5) for a rolling bearing, the rolling element comprising: a body having a running surface (end face 5a, runs on the surface 7s and on the cage pocket surface), the running surface being provided with at least one marking (groove pattern 5g) configured to identify the rolling element (the variety of patterns shown in Shinichi can be used to identify and distinguish different rollers based on use/need).
Regarding claim 2, Shinichi discloses that the marking includes at least one notch (5g) in the running surface of the rolling element body.
Regarding claim 3, Shinichi discloses that the at least one marking includes a plurality of notches in the running surface of the rolling element body (in the multiple embodiments disclosed by Shinichi there can be plurality of notches 5g, such as in figures 1c, 1d, 2b, 2c, 2d and 2e).
Regarding claim 4, Shinichi discloses that the plurality of notches (5g) of the marking are all located within an area of the running surface having a predetermined size (surface 5a as a whole is a predetermined size).
Regarding claim 5, Shinichi discloses that each one of the plurality of notches is filled with a filler material, the filler material being different than a material of the rolling element (5g can retain grease, see second paragraph in the “best-mode” portion of the attached translation, which would act as a filler material under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 7, Shinichi discloses that the at least one marking is a two-dimensional code (the grooves are formed in a two-dimensional end face of the roller, the grooves can be used to define and distinguish different rollers and thus the grooves would act as a two-dimensional code).
Regarding claim 8, Shinichi discloses that the at least one marking is readable optically, electronically, magnetically, by interferometry, and/or by spectroscopy (the groove pattern can be optically read).
Regarding claim 11, Shinichi discloses that the at least one marking is configured to identify a rolling bearing, a set of rolling elements, and/or an individual rolling element (the markings in the end of the roller can function as identification marks either for the bearing as a whole or for individual elements).
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinichi, JP2008-25731.
Shinichi does not disclose that the rolling element is made out of ceramic.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Shinichi and make the rolling element out of ceramic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sanz, GB2521391.
Sanz discloses that the rolling element in a bearing can have the identification code, Sanz further discloses ball bearing devices in figure 2b, taking the totality of the disclosure of Sanz the ball or spherical element in the ball bearing can also include the identification code.
However, in the alternative, since Sanz does not explicitly disclose that the rolling element with the identification mark is a sphere, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of effective filing to apply the teaching of Sanz to any form of a rolling element, including a sphere or spherical element (ball), since substituting the type of rolling element that includes the code would have been an obvious matter of design choice, based on the type of bearing, and applying the code to a roller vs a ball element does not solve any stated problem or is not for any particular purpose and the invention of applying identification codes disclosed by Sanz would perform equally well regardless of the type of rolling element it is applied to.
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