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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The instant application is a CON of a PCT application, however a correspond search report and/or written opinion has not been provided, if these documents are present Applicant should cite a copy of these, see MPEP 2001.
Drawings
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 various shapes and features of the separators recited in claims 11, 13 and 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The figures only appear to show a straight cylindrical shape to the separator element, the particular shapes defined in the claims listed above are not shown.
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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, “centreless” should be - -centerless- - to match the spelling in the specification, however, see the rejection under 35 USC 112 below.
Claim 1, last line “are distributed relative to one another” is grammatically awkward. The recitation as a whole is attempting to state that the axis of the separators are offset or don’t align with the axis of the roller(s) but Applicant appears to be attempting to define this based off the collective group instead of saying each separator is offset toward one of the raceways with respect to the center of the roller elements. It is suggested that the last clause as a whole be rephrased to compare each separator relative to each roller as this would provide more clarity and avoid the awkward phrasing of the clause as a whole.
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 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the metes and bounds of the phrase “centreless [centerless] larger roller bearing” are. It is unclear how any bearing can be “centerless” since all objects have some form of a center, this can be a dimensional center or a center of mass for example, what is structurally required to be considered centerless is not known or described by Applicant and thus any implied structure from this phrase is unknown.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the clear height" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. In this case the phrase is functioning the same as “for example”, see MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1-11, 13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2014-202315 (JP315).
Regarding claim 1, JP315 discloses a centerless large roller bearing (JP315 illustrates the same tapered/inclined roller element bearing as that in the instant application and is thus considered “centerless” just like the instant application) comprising: two concentric bearing rings (11 and 12) rotatable relative to one another, at least one row of rolling elements (13) which support the bearing rings against one another and roll on raceways (11a and 12a) of the bearing rings and a cage (made of 19, 21, 22) with separators (at 18) between the rolling elements for separating and guiding the rolling elements, wherein the separators are eccentrically offset relative to one of the raceways (18 in the bearing is positioned closer to the outer ring than the inner as shown in figures 1 and 2 just like that of the instant application) with respect to a bearing clearance central axis (at X, corresponds to the rotational axis of the individual rollers just like in the instant application) along which the rolling elements are arranged such that their axes of rotation are distributed relative to one another.
Regarding claim 2, JP315 discloses that a distance between the separators and one of the raceways is at least 150% or at least 200% of the distance between the separators and the other raceway (the space between the bottom of 18 and 11a is at least 200% or 2x the space between the top of 18 and 12a as shown in figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3, JP315 discloses that the separators (18) are at 2/3 to 3/4 of the clear height [the bearing clearance] of the bearing clearance between the two raceways (the dashed line showing the center of 18 in figure 1 is at a location that corresponds to ¾ of the total clearance between the bearing rings).
Regarding claim 4, JP315 discloses that the rolling elements are held by the cage with the separators on one of the bearing rings, so that the bearing ring, the rolling elements, and the cage with the separators form a pre-assembled mounting assembly (the flanges 11b and 11c act to axially restrain the rollers on the inner ring and then the cage prevents radial separation, this combination of elements forms a pre-assembly of the parts that then allows for the outer ring to be slid on just like in figure 1 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 5, JP315 discloses that the raceway of the bearing ring, on which the rolling elements are held pre-assembled by the cage with the separators, comprises a groove (formed between 11b and 11c) and/or is laterally enclosed by guide projections (the projections are 11b and 11c).
Regarding claim 6, JP315 discloses that the two raceways have different track diameters (each ring has a different diameter to form a radial bearing with an inner ring and an outer ring) and the separators are further away from the raceway with the smaller track diameter than from the raceway with the larger track diameter (18 is closer to the outer ring or the larger track diameter ring).
Regarding claim 7, JP315 discloses that one of the bearing rings forms an inner ring (11) and the other bearing ring forms an outer ring (12), wherein the separators are spaced further away from the raceway of the inner ring (further from 11a) than from the raceway of the outer ring (12a) and hold the rolling elements on the inner ring (the cage as a whole holds the rollers in place on the inner ring).
Regarding claim 8, JP315 discloses that the cage comprises at least one cage ring (21 or 22, ring formed by the interconnection of the sub-links as shown in figure 4) to which the separators (18) are fastened, and wherein a mountable joint separation point is between the cage ring and the separators (the pin end of 18 in the hole of the cage rings is a mountable joint separation or in other words a mount configuration that can be separated).
Regarding claim 9, JP315 discloses a detachable fastening or a plug connection is between the cage ring and the separators (the pin end of each separator 18 that enters into the holes in the cage ring is a plug type connection).
Regarding claim 10, JP315 discloses that the separators have a circular cross-section (the claim does not define any particular cross-section location or orientation, taken along the axial direction of the separators the cross section would be circular, see figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, JP315 discloses that the separators have a cross-section deviating from the circular shape, in particular a trapezoidal or triangular or polygonal cross-section (again the claim does not define any particular cross-section location or orientation, in the sections as shown in figures 1 and 2 the separator has a generally elliptical shape which would be a divergence from circular).
Regarding claim 13, JP315 discloses that the separators have a deviating diameter over their length (over the length the diameter expands and contracts as shown in figures 1, 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 15, JP315 discloses that the rolling elements are tapered rollers and/or the rolling bearing is a single-row tapered roller bearing (the bearing is a single row tapered roller bearing which includes tapered rollers, the tapering of the roller is clearly shown in figure 4).
Regarding claim 16, JP315 discloses that the cage with its separators defines a tapered envelope contour (the cage is tapered with a diameter that changes along the axial length of the cage, see at least figures 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-12, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2008-164105 (JP105).
Regarding claim 1, JP105 discloses a centerless large roller bearing (JP105 illustrates the same tapered/inclined roller element bearing as that in the instant application and is thus considered “centerless” just like the instant application) comprising: two concentric bearing rings (2 and 3) rotatable relative to one another, at least one row of rolling elements (4) which support the bearing rings against one another and roll on raceways (2a and 3a) of the bearing rings and a cage (5) with separators (8) between the rolling elements for separating and guiding the rolling elements, wherein the separators are eccentrically offset relative to one of the raceways (8 in the bearing is positioned closer to the outer ring than the inner as shown in figure 2 just like that of the instant application) with respect to a bearing clearance central axis (at the PCD circle, corresponds to the rotational axis of the individual rollers just like in the instant application) along which the rolling elements are arranged such that their axes of rotation are distributed relative to one another.
Regarding claim 2, JP105 discloses that a distance between the separators and one of the raceways is at least 150% or at least 200% of the distance between the separators and the other raceway (the space between the bottom of 8 and 2a is at least 200% or 2x the space between the top of 8 and 3a as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, JP105 discloses that the separators (8) are at 2/3 to 3/4 of the clear height [the bearing clearance] of the bearing clearance between the two raceways (the bottom of 8 in figure 2 is at a location that corresponds to ¾ of the total clearance between the bearing rings).
Regarding claim 4, JP105 discloses that the rolling elements are held by the cage with the separators on one of the bearing rings, so that the bearing ring, the rolling elements, and the cage with the separators form a pre-assembled mounting assembly (the flanges 2b and 2c act to axially restrain the rollers on the inner ring and then the cage prevents radial separation, this combination of elements forms a pre-assembly of the parts that then allows for the outer ring to be slid on just like in figure 1 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 5, JP105 discloses that the raceway of the bearing ring, on which the rolling elements are held pre-assembled by the cage with the separators, comprises a groove (formed between 2b and 2c) and/or is laterally enclosed by guide projections (the projections are 2b and 2c).
Regarding claim 6, JP315 discloses that the two raceways have different track diameters (each ring has a different diameter to form a radial bearing with an inner ring and an outer ring) and the separators are further away from the raceway with the smaller track diameter than from the raceway with the larger track diameter (8 is closer to the outer ring or the larger track diameter ring).
Regarding claim 7, JP105 discloses that one of the bearing rings forms an inner ring (2) and the other bearing ring forms an outer ring (3), wherein the separators are spaced further away from the raceway of the inner ring (further from 2a) than from the raceway of the outer ring (3a) and hold the rolling elements on the inner ring (the cage has a whole holds the rollers in place on the inner ring).
Regarding claim 11, JP105 discloses that the separators have a cross-section deviating from the circular shape, in particular a trapezoidal or triangular or polygonal cross-section (again the claim does not define any particular cross-section, in the sections as shown in figure 1 and 2 the separator has a generally triangular or rectangular shape which would be a divergence from circular).
Regarding claim 12, JP105 discloses that that separators 8 have a constant thickness over their length (when a circumferential location of the separator is selected and thickness at that location over the length is viewed the separator 8 has a constant thickness, this can be seen in figure 2b, even if the separator is viewed at the location corresponding to 8a, the thickness in the length direction would still remain constant while being different from the center of the separator but the claim does not exclude such a configuration).
Regarding claim 15, JP105 discloses that the rolling elements are tapered rollers and/or the rolling bearing is a single-row tapered roller bearing (the bearing is a single row tapered roller bearing which includes tapered rollers, the tapering of the roller is clearly shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, JP105 discloses that the cage with its separators defines a tapered envelope contour (the cage is tapered with a diameter that changes along the axial length of the cage, see at least figure 2).
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2014-202315 (JP315), in view of JP2008-164105 (JP105).
Regarding claim 14, JP315 does not discloses that the separators become continuously thicker towards one end-face (clm 14).
JP105 teaches that the separators (8) can become continuously thicker towards one end face (from right to left in figures 1a the thickness of the circumferential portion of the separator becomes continuously thicker).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify JP315 and have the separator taper in the axial direction to define a separator that becomes thicker toward one end, as taught by JP105, since substituting between different known separator shapes or including a tapering of the separator provides the same predictable result of retaining and properly positioning and guiding the rollers within the bearing assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed below all include similar configurations to the prior art applied above and all would be applicable to claim 1:
USP 10,830,279
USP 10,816,034
USP 10,330,146
USP 8,123,414
USP 6,022,148
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