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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Brazil on February 27, 2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. It is noted that the instant application is a 371 application however none of the priority documents have provided and the Applicant has not provided the necessary access code in the Application Data Sheet to allow the office to retrieve the documents.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 8/26/22 has been considered as previously noted. However, as noted above the instant application is a 371 application, however the corresponding search report and more specifically any written opinion has not been provided and/or cited on the IDS. Applicant is reminded of the duty to disclose, see 37 CFR 1.56, and that any additional information that Applicant wishes to be indicated in the record as considered must be cited in an IDS document.
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, 2, 4, 10-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson, USP 10,408,265, in view of Ono, USP 6,585,419, further in view of Kato, USP 10,145,509, and further in view of Hahn, USP 5,009,522.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Gibson discloses a shell bearing for an internal combustion engines [clm 1] or an internal combustion engine [claim 12], comprising: two semicircular segments (Gibson only illustrates one half at 100, however the disclosure indicates the bearing as part of a shell bearing configuration, these include two halves that work together, however see teaching below) defining a shell bearing profile (see figure 1b), a constant oil groove (108, “constant” is not limited to any specific structural arrangement, the groove as illustrated runs between the two circumferential ends without interruption and is this considered “constant”) extending longitudinally and in a centralized manner along an internal surface of at least one of the two segments (shown the middle in figure 1b) and along a total extent of the at least one segment in the circumferential direction (the groove runs the full circumferential extent of the segment just like in the instant application), the groove having both a constant width and a constant depth (similar to the trapezoidal arrangement of the instant application the width at the opening of the groove is constant and the depth is constant), with the width (W2) of the constant groove being between 1 mm and 7 mm and that the depth be in the range of 0.1-2mm (see column 5, lines 52-54), the constant depth being defined by a radial distance between a groove bottom of the oil groove and an edge of the oil groove at the internal surface running along the longitudinal extension (Applicant introduced this recitation to overcome the groove having other surface channels that feed into creating distributions in the depth, Gibson discloses that the bearing surface is flat/smooth other than the singular groove and thus the groove depth is constant just like in the instant application) and wherein the at least one segment (4) has a semicircular shape with a thickness at a circumferential end the same as that in a middle portion of the at least one segment (see figure 1a where the thickness is shown as constant).
Gibson does not disclose that the assembly includes at least two oil holes disposed in the oil groove that penetrates through the at least one segment and Gibson does not clearly set forth two shells.
Ono teaches that in a similar bearing there can be provided at least two oil holes (7) disposed in the oil groove (6) that penetrate through the at least one segment. Ono also further discloses that shell type bearings can include two halves (see Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Gibson and add includes at least two oil holes disposed in the oil groove that penetrate through the at least one segment, as taught by Ono, for the predictable result of providing a means to communicate the working fluid for the bearing into the space between the bearing surface and the shaft to properly lubricate the assembly. It further would have been obvious to one skill in the art at the time of effective filing to provide the shell bearing assembly of Gibson with two halves, as further shown in Ono, for the predictable result of providing a bearing surface on both the top and bottom of the shaft so that the shaft is supported completely through the whole range of motion by the bearing element.
Gibson in view of Ono, as applied above, while disclosing the groove dimensions, does not disclose that the oil groove comprises a volume in a proportion of up to 10% of a volume of the shell bearing.
However, Kato further discloses that the reduction of the groove volume in these shell type bearings can lead to a reduction in the size of the oil pump required (column 5, lines 40-60) and more specifically that variables of depth and width of the groove can be modified (column 9, line 55-column 10, line 4). Ultimately the size of the groove changes the volume of the groove and thus Kato is disclosing that the volume of the groove is a result effective variable with one concern for changing sizes of lubricant grooves being the pump requirements (larger grooves have more volume and need a larger pump rating while smaller grooves have less volume and don’t need the same size or pump rating, this is the reason for reducing the groove volume in other subsequent bearings in the assembly as a whole). Thus, at the very least, Kato is demonstrating that groove volume is optimizable to accommodate a given pump size/rate.
Based on the disclosure of Kato as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Gibson in view of Ono and set the volume of the groove to a specific value of 10% or less of the volume of the shell/segments, 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 233. Also, it has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Finally, since the volume is the result of groove length x width x depth, and Kato discloses these can be changed, the proportion of the volume is ultimately the result of 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).
NOTE: Changing the groove size is also obvious as it influences other characteristics of the bearing, see the previous citation of pertinent art in the non-final office action dated 11/21/24.
Gibson in view of Ono, while showing the two oil holes (7 of Ono), does not disclose that the holes have a width greater than that of the oil groove.
Hahn teaches a similar shell bearing half where the oil hole (28) has a width (diameter) that is greater than a width of the oil groove (44, see figure 2 which clearly shows that the side wall that defines the hole is cut into the sidewalls of 44, figure 3 also shows the diameter of 28 as slightly larger than the width of 44).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Gibson in view of Ono and increase the hole width so that it is larger than the width of the groove, since Applicant has not disclosed that the width of the hole relative to the groove solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless of the relative size of the hole to the groove as the hole ultimately performs the same function, regardless of size, of delivering lubricant to the groove.
Regarding claims 2, 13 and 19, Gibson discloses that the oil groove comprises a shape of one of trapezoidal, rectangular and square (6 is trapezoidal).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Gibson discloses that the internal surface of the two segments comprises a coating (106).
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 14, Gibson discloses that the at least one segment that includes an aluminum substrate (104, see column 4, lines 4-8 disclosing an aluminum alloy) and the internal surface of the at least segment is provided with a coating (106) [clms 10 and 14], alternatively Gibson discloses that the at least one segment comprises a bronze substrate (see column 1, lines 49-52 disclosing that bronze and aluminum alloys where known material for the lining/substrate 104) and the internal surface of the at least one segment is provided with a coating (106) [clms 11 and 14].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In this case, to address the new structural requirement of the claim the reference to Gibson was changed to the primary reference thus making the grounds of rejection new.
Applicant’s argument focus on the use of the smaller grooves on the surface of Ono which Applicant considers as changing both the groove depth in the localized region and also changing the thickness of the bearing segment overall. Gibson, which is now being used in place of Ono, shows a smooth bearing surface and thus addresses the concerns Applicant had with Ono.
Applicant further restates the position that Kato fails to recognize the volume of the oil as a result-effective variable. This argument remains unpersuasive for the same reasons as previously argued and repeated below. Applicant also again references the change to depth which results in a non-constant dimension or crush relief. This is not persuasive as again this is focused on a specific embodiment not what the reference teaches or suggests as a whole. Kato specifically states that changing the internal volume of the oil groove reduces the amount of fluid that needs to be supplied, see column 5, lines 57-60, and thus allows for a smaller pump to be used, this is a clear teaching and suggestion that changing the volume of the groove is a result effective variable that alters the amount of lubricant and the size of the pump required.
The position taken in the previous office action is being restated for the completeness of the record:
Applicant again presents an argument directed toward the volume of the groove being a result effective variable. Applicant also again references groove 42G and argues that the teaching to reduce the size/volume only applies to this groove, however the teaching of the reference as a whole is directed to reducing/adjusting groove size in general, this relates to both groove 42g and 41g. These grooves in the reference are directed toward different embodiments but the teaching as a whole is directed toward reducing groove size, this can be done to either 41g or 42g. In addition, the reference speaks specifically to reducing the size of 41g in column 9, line 55-column 10, line 4. Specifically this section references changing the groove depth, this changes the total volume of the groove. Thus, the reference, as a whole, recognizes that changes to the groove size and shape, which ultimately changes volume, is a result effective variable. Applicant further argues in the previous remarks that the line citation above is counter to the claim limitation requiring constant depth and width, however this not the case, the line citation is stating that any number of values of the groove can be changed without departing from the scope of the disclosed invention, this is providing a number of alternatives and is not explicitly stating that the groove depth and width cannot be kept constant.
Applicant then argues that the teaching of reducing groove volume only applies to groove 42G. However this not true. Taking the reference as a whole the claim suggests that a number of modifications can be made to the groove shape and thus the volume, some of which are listed in the previous line citation and are specifically addressing groove 41G. Applicant has previously argued this citation spanning columns 9 and 10 provides for alterations to the groove 41G but now is arguing that the changing of the size and volume of the reference only relates to 42G. If the shape and size of 41G can be changed wouldn’t this also suggest a change in volume?
Applicant is arguing the reference as if each embodiment must be considered in its own bubble, however that is not the case. The claim is rejected based on what the reference discloses and suggests, the references disclose a bearing sleeve element having the same structure, the references also suggests that features of the groove can be changed. It is because of this latter disclosure that the 10% volume of the groove relative the shell recitation of the claim is being considered obvious since changing a dimension of a groove changes the grooves size and thus the volume. It is the totality of the disclosure of Kato that is rendering the invention obvious, not that one or more of the specific embodiments illustrated anticipates the claim.
Applicant concludes the previous argument in item A by representing the argument that the application recognizes criticality for changing the volume, however, as previously stated, this argument is unpersuasive primarily because Kato does indeed suggest that the volume of a groove in the same type of bearing is a result effective variable. However, the argument is also unpersuasive because criticality for a limitation does not exclude the prior art from suggesting a modification to the same feature for a different reason. In other words, Applicant has identified changes to the groove size as being important for one reason, while the prior art identifies another reason, regardless of the reason both documents are concerned with a modification to the groove size and thus this feature cannot be considered inventive even if the reasons are different.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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