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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 9, 2026 has been entered.
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) 1-12, 16, 24 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, US PGPub 2005/0036722, in view of Dam, USP 5,700,094.
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a self-lubricating bearing, comprising: an outer ring (1) having a concave inside surface defining an interior area of the outer ring (curved inner surface); an inner member (3) having a convex exterior surface (curved outer surface), the inner member being disposed at least partially in the interior area, the convex exterior surface having a physical vapor deposition [PVD] coating (4, it is noted that how the coating is applied is a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2113, however Sato discloses the same PVD process, see paragraph 0021) thereon; and a self-lubricating liner (2, see paragraph 0026, PTFE is a self-lubricating material) bonded (using phenolic resin as a paste, see paragraph 0026) to the concave inside surface, wherein the outer ring comprises a first metallic alloy, and the inner member comprises a second metallic alloy (see paragraph 0022).
Sato further discloses that the physical vapor deposition coating comprises titanium nitride (see paragraph 0020) which is one of the materials disclosed in the instant application.
Sato does not disclosure that the physical vapor deposition coating is chromium nitride, an alternate material listed in the disclosure and previously claimed in claim 15 in the alternative.
Dam teaches a coating used in a bearing where chromium nitride is listed as an alternative to titanium nitride (see column 2, lines 45-51) and Dam further disclose that the chromium nitride can be applied by physical vapor deposition (see column 2, lines 62-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Sato and use any known alternative to titanium nitride as a bearing coating, including chromium nitride, as taught by Dam, 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.
Regarding claim 2, Sato discloses that a chemical composition of the first metallic alloy and a chemical composition of the second metallic alloy are the same (both can be steel or titanium, this includes combinations of materials that would be the same alloy, see paragraph 0022).
Regarding claims 3-12, Sato, while disclosing the use of stainless steel (paragraph 0022), does not disclose the specifics of the steel and thus does not disclose that the chemical composition comprises a precipitation hardened stainless steel [clm 3], that the precipitation hardened stainless steel comprises an AMS 5643 17-4PH stainless steel or an AMS 5629 13-8 PH stainless steel [clm 4], that the precipitation hardened stainless steel comprises an AMS 5643 17-4PH stainless steel heat treated per 17-4PH H1150 [clm 5], that the chemical composition comprises a martensitic stainless steel [clm 6], that the martensitic stainless steel comprises a 440C stainless steel or an AMS 5630, AMS 5880 or AMS 5618 stainless steel [clm 7], that the martensitic stainless steel is heat treated to HRc 55 to 62 [clm 8], that a chemical composition of the first metallic alloy comprises a precipitation hardened stainless steel, and a chemical composition of the second metallic alloy comprises a martensitic stainless steel [clm 9], that the precipitation hardened stainless steel comprises an AMS 5643 17-4PH stainless steel or an AMS 5629 13-8 PH stainless steel, and the martensitic stainless steel comprises a 440C stainless steel or an AMS 5630, AMS 5880 or AMS 5618 stainless steel [clm 10], that the precipitation hardened stainless steel comprises an AMS 5643 17-4PH stainless steel heat treated per 17-4PH H1150 [clm 11] or that the martensitic stainless steel is heat treated to HRc 55 to 62.
All of claims 3-12 are defining specifics of the material selected and limiting the type of material to specific compositions that are either heat treated or hardened however none of these recitations are further limiting the structure of the bearing, nor has Applicant invented a new material. The claims are merely setting forth known materials that Applicant has selected for their particular purpose, however this is not inventive since it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select at the time of effective filing to modify Sato and select from any known material, including materials having the features set forth in claims 3-12, 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. NOTE: hardening of materials is not new or novel, selection of a particular range, while ultimately selecting a particular material, does not render the claims inventive and is a matter of selection from a smaller class of materials, those being hardened by some form of treatment process, the result of all treatment process being improved hardness/durability. It is further noted that in the disclosure there is no indication that the underlying materials provide any benefit, the benefits of the invention related to the PVD coating and the self-lubricating liner this combination of features as demonstrated by the prior art above was known prior to the filing by Applicant.
See the previous citation of pertinent art in the non-final office action dated April 30, 2024 that provided examples of the materials recited being known materials within the field of bearings.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is listing specific PVD processes, the specific process used is a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2113, which are not structurally limiting. By disclosing a PVD coating the structure of the claim is anticipated by Sato.
Regarding claim 24, Sato discloses that the self-lubricating bearing is a spherical bearing or a journal bearing (see figure 2 showing a spherical bearing).
Regarding claim 32, the recitation is defining the intended use of the bearing, this is not structurally limiting the bearing itself, regardless of where the bearing is used the structure remains the same. The recitation “sized” is not limiting the bearing to any specific size. However, it is noted that Sato discloses that the field of the invention is related to supports of aircraft flaps (see paragraph 0003) which would include ailerons, elevators and rudders.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13-14, 16, 24, 26, 32, 36 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Merg, USP 10,480,569, in view of Dam, USP 5,700,094.
Regarding claim 1, Merg discloses a self-lubricating bearing, comprising: an outer ring (14) having a concave inside surface defining an interior area of the outer ring (curved inner surface); an inner member (12) having a convex exterior surface (curved outer surface), the inner member being disposed at least partially in the interior area, the convex exterior surface having a physical vapor deposition [PVD] coating (see column 4, lines 32-38, this is also a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2113) thereon; and a self-lubricating liner (70, disclosed as PTFE which is a self-lubricating material) bonded (secured to the outer ring 14, see column 5, lines 6-22) to the concave inside surface, wherein the outer ring comprises a first metallic alloy, and the inner member comprises a second metallic alloy (see column 4, line 19-column 5, line 5).
Merg further discloses that the physical vapor deposition coating comprises titanium nitride (see column 4, lines 32-28) which is one of the materials disclosed in the instant application.
Merg does not disclosure that the physical vapor deposition coating is chromium nitride, an alternate material listed in the disclosure and previously claimed in claim 15 in the alternative.
Dam teaches a coating used in a bearing where chromium nitride is listed as an alternative to titanium nitride (see column 2, lines 45-51) and Dam further disclose that the chromium nitride can be applied by physical vapor deposition (see column 2, lines 62-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Merg and use any known alternative to titanium nitride as a bearing coating, including chromium nitride, as taught by Dam, 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.
Regarding claim 2, Merg discloses that a chemical composition of the first metallic alloy and a chemical composition of the second metallic alloy are the same (both the same titanium alloy, see column 4, line 19-column 5, line 5).
Regarding claim 13, Merg discloses a lubricant (50) disposed between the self-lubricating liner (70) and the physical vapor deposition coating (on outer surface of 12).
Regarding claim 14, Merg discloses that with the lubricant comprises a silicone grease (see column 6, lines 49-52) with a plurality of first self-lubricating particles dispersed therein (grease is made of a series of lubricating particles, the claim does not specifically limit the claim to any type of particles, all oils and greases are made of lubricating particles under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is listing specific PVD processes, the specific process used is a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2113, which are not structurally limiting. By disclosing a PVD coating the structure of the claim is anticipated by Merg.
Regarding claim 24, Merg discloses that the self-lubricating bearing is a spherical bearing or a journal bearing (see figure 3a showing a spherical bearing).
Regarding claim 26, Merg discloses that the inner member (12) has at least one axial split (13a and 13b) therein.
Regarding claim 32, the recitation is defining the intended use of the bearing, this is not structurally limiting the bearing itself, regardless of where the bearing is used the structure remains the same. Since all the bearing structure is disclosed as addressed above claim 32 is rejected. The recitation of “size” is also not limiting the bearing to any particular size.
Regarding claim 36, Merg discloses a self-lubricating bearing, comprising: an outer ring (14) having a concave inside surface defining an interior area of the outer ring (curved inner surface); an inner member (12) having a convex exterior surface (curved outer surface), the inner member being disposed at least partially in the interior area, the convex exterior surface having a physical vapor deposition [PVD] coating (see column 4, lines 32-38, this is also a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2113) thereon; and a self-lubricating liner (70, disclosed as PTFE which is a self-lubricating material) bonded (secured to the outer ring 14, see column 5, lines 6-22) bonded to an entire area of the concave inside surface (the entire area is in reference to the concave surface itself, this surface in Merg can be viewed as only spanning the regions between the two seals 95 and the liner 70 covers this entire area), and a lubricant (50) disposed between the self-lubricating liner (70) and the physical vapor deposition coating (on outer surface of 12), wherein the outer ring comprises a first metallic alloy, and the inner member comprises a second metallic alloy (see column 4, line 19-column 5, line 5).
Merg further discloses that the physical vapor deposition coating comprises titanium nitride (see column 4, lines 32-28) which is one of the materials disclosed in the instant application.
Merg does not disclosure that the physical vapor deposition coating is chromium nitride, an alternate material listed in the disclosure and previously claimed in claim 15 in the alternative.
Dam teaches a coating used in a bearing where chromium nitride is listed as an alternative to titanium nitride (see column 2, lines 45-51) and Dam further disclose that the chromium nitride can be applied by physical vapor deposition (see column 2, lines 62-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Merg and use any known alternative to titanium nitride as a bearing coating, including chromium nitride, as taught by Dam, 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.
Regarding claim 38, the recitation is defining the intended use of the bearing, this is not structurally limiting the bearing itself, regardless of where the bearing is used the structure remains the same. Since all the bearing structure is disclosed as addressed above claim 32 is rejected. The recitation of “size” is also not limiting the bearing to any particular size.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merg, USP 10,480,569, in view of Dam, USP 5,700,094, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Sakairi, USP 8,915,648.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Merg, while disclosing silicone grease which ultimately has self-lubricating particles as explained in the rejection of claim 14 above, does not disclose that the plurality of first self-lubricating particles comprises polytetrafluoroethylene [clm 17] and that the polytetrafluoroethylene comprises at least one of a powder, a floc and fibers [clm 18].
Sakairi teaches the use of silicone grease in a bearing wherein the grease includes particles comprising polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, see column 18, lines 59-64) and more specifically a powder form of PTFE (see column 18, lines 59-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Merg and replace the silicone grease with any previously known silicone grease, including one that includes PTFE particles in the form of a powder, as taught by Sakairi, 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. In addition, substituting one known grease for another known grease is not inventive but rather a matter of routine substituting of known equivalents that ultimately act to lubricate and reduce friction/wear in the bearing.
Claim(s) 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merg, USP 10,480,569, in view of Dam, USP 5,700,094, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Harper, USP 9,316,257.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Merg discloses that the self-lubricating liner (70) comprises a woven material (80) with a resin (see column 5, lines 35-69) embedded therein [clm 19] and that the woven material comprises a fabric comprising at least one of fiberglass, polyethylene terephthalate, polyester (see column 5, lines 35-69), nylon, cotton, meta- aramid material, polytetrafluoroethylene (see column 5, lines 35-69) and aromatic polyamide fibers.
Merg does not disclose that the resin is a thermosetting resin with self-lubricating particles disposed therein [clm 19].
Harper teaches that a self-lubricating liner (118) uses a thermosetting resin (see column 4, lines 45-49) and that the liner can further include additional particles in addition to the woven material (the addition of other fibers addressed column 4, lines 45-49, the other particles including the fibers listed at the beginning of the paragraph, NOTE in the instant application the second particles can included fibers or other particles imbedded in the fabric).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Merg and replace the liner with any previously known liner, including one that comprises a woven material with thermosetting resin and additional lubricating particles, as taught by Harper, 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. In addition, substituting one known PTFE liner for another known PTFE liner is not inventive but rather a matter of routine substituting of known equivalents that both perform the same function.
Regarding claim 23, Merg in view of Harper discloses that the resin comprises polyester, epoxy, phenolic, urethane, polyimide, thermoplastic polymers or a thermoset polymer (see column 4, lines 45-59 of Harper).
Regarding claims 21-22, Merg discloses a woven liner and thus does not discloses that the self-lubricating liner comprises a thermally-consolidated, machinable, moldable non-woven material [clm 21], and that the non-woven material comprises a plurality of second self-lubricating particles integral to the non-woven material or as an additive to a resin [clm 22].
Harper further teaches that the liner, in an alternative to being a woven type liner, can be non-woven material (can be made with only chopped fibers, not a woven fabric, see column 4 lines 45-68) that is thermally-consolidated (solidified thermosetting resin) that is also machinable or moldable (these are capabilities of the material, not structurally limiting however, any generally fluid material which would be the case if a woven fabric is not used can be molded and later machined upon solidifying) and that the non-woven material comprises a plurality of second self-lubricating particles integral to the non-woven material or as additives to the resin (all the different fibers disclosed can be mixed with the resin, see column 4, lines 60-68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Merg and replace the liner with any previously known liner, including one that comprises a non-woven material with thermosetting resin and additional lubricating particles, as taught by Harper, 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. In addition, substituting one known PTFE liner for another known PTFE liner is not inventive but rather a matter of routine substituting of known equivalents that perform the same function.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Merg, USP 10,480,569, in view of Dam, USP 5,700,094, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Sato, USP 2005/0036722.
Merg, further discloses that the convex exterior surface is a continuous, seal-free surface as the surface itself has no feature for receiving or holding a seal. However, by nature of having the sealing element in the outer ring member, Merg does not disclose that the concave inside surface is continuous, seal-free surface and that the self-lubricating liner is bonded to an entire area of the concave inside surface.
Sato teaches an alternate spherical bearing outer ring member wherein the outer ring has a continuous seal free surface and the liner is bonded over the entire area of the inside of the outer ring.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Merg and use any previously known outer ring configuration, including one that is continuous, seal free, and has the liner bonded over the entire inner surface, as taught by Sato, since substituting between different known spherical bearing outer ring configurations provides the same predictable result of providing an arrangement that supports and outer spherical ring and inner spherical ring in a manner that allows for the same relative movement. In other words removing of a seal and having the bonded layer run end to end of the bearing ring is not inventive as such an outer ring configuration was previously known prior to the disclosure by Applicant. Substituting different know ring shapes/arrangements is not inventive but rather a matter of routine substitution of equivalent parts.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, US PGPub 2005/0036722 in view of Dam, USP 5,700,094, or alternatively Merg, USP 10,480,569 in view of Dam, USP 5,700,094, as applied to claim 1 individually, and further in view of Porter, US PGPub 2013/0287326.
Neither Sato nor Merg disclose that the outer ring has at least one axial split therein.
Porter teaches that in a spherical bearing the outer ring (16) can include at least axial split (in this case two splits segmenting the ring into two parts 16a and 16b, see paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Sato or Merg and configure the outer ring as a split outer ring with at least one axial split, as taught by Porter, since substituting between a known one-piece outer ring and a known two piece outer ring provides the same predictable result of rotatably supporting the inner ring element of the bearing. In addition, using a split ring provides the known benefit of simplify manufacturing by removing the need for a complex insertion method of the inner member or the need of machining load slots in the outer ring.
Claim(s) 1-12, 16, 24, 28, 30, 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giegel, US PGPub 2014/0254965, in view of Sato, US PGPub 2005/0036722, and further in view of Dam, USP 5,700,094.
Regarding claim 1, Giegel discloses a self-lubricating bearing, comprising: an outer ring (14) having a concave inside surface defining an interior area of the outer ring (curved inner surface); an inner member (12) having a convex exterior surface (curved outer surface), the inner member being disposed at least partially in the interior area; and a self-lubricating liner (20B, see paragraph 0033, PTFE is a self-lubricating material or see paragraph 0034 disclosing solid film lubricant as an alternative) bonded to the concave inside surface (attached to the outer ring), wherein the outer ring comprises a first metallic alloy, and the inner member comprises a second metallic alloy (see paragraphs 0031-0032).
Giegel does not disclose the use of a PVD coating on the convex exterior surface of the inner member.
Sato teaches a similar bearing which, in addition to a self-lubricating liner, includes the convex exterior surface of the inner member (3) having a PVD coating (4, see paragraph 0021) for the purpose of providing a bearing with a stable sliding surface over a long period of time (benefit of using a self-lubricating liner with the PVD coating disclosed in paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Giegel and add a PVD coating on the convex exterior surface of the inner member, as taught by Sato, for the purpose of providing a bearing with a stable sliding surface over a long period of time.
Sato further discloses that the physical vapor deposition coating comprises titanium nitride (see paragraph 0020) which is one of the materials disclosed in the instant application.
Therefore, Giegel in view of Sato does not disclosure that the physical vapor deposition coating is chromium nitride, an alternate material listed in the disclosure and previously claimed in claim 15 in the alternative.
Dam teaches a coating used in a bearing where chromium nitride is listed as an alternative to titanium nitride (see column 2, lines 45-51) and Dam further disclose that the chromium nitride can be applied by physical vapor deposition (see column 2, lines 62-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Giegel in view Sato and use any known alternative to titanium nitride as a bearing coating, including chromium nitride, as taught by Dam, 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.
Regarding claim 2, Giegel discloses that a chemical composition of the first metallic alloy and a chemical composition of the second metallic alloy are the same (both can be steel or titanium, see paragraphs 0031 and 0032).
Regarding claim 3, Giegel discloses that precipitation hardened stainless steel can be used (see paragraph 0032).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Giegel discloses that martensitic stainless steel in the form of 440C stainless steel can be used (see paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 9, Giegel discloses that a chemical composition of the first metallic alloy comprises a precipitation hardened stainless steel, and a chemical composition of the second metallic alloy comprises a martensitic stainless steel (see paragraphs 0031-0032).
Regarding the remainder of the material claims, 4-5, 8 and 10-12, Giegel, while disclosing the use of general classes of materials in addition to 440C and precipitation hardened steel in the form of 17-4PH, does not disclose the specific types of steel or treatments to the steel. Specifically Giegel does not disclose that the precipitation hardened stainless steel comprises an AMS 5643 17-4PH stainless steel or an AMS 5629 13-8 PH stainless steel [clm 4], that the precipitation hardened stainless steel comprises an AMS 5643 17-4PH stainless steel heat treated per 17-4PH H1150 [clm 5], that the martensitic stainless steel is heat treated to HRc 55 to 62 [clm 8], that the precipitation hardened stainless steel comprises an AMS 5643 17-4PH stainless steel or an AMS 5629 13-8 PH stainless steel [clm 10], that the precipitation hardened stainless steel comprises an AMS 5643 17-4PH stainless steel heat treated per 17-4PH H1150 [clm 11] or that the martensitic stainless steel is heat treated to HRc 55 to 62.
These claims are defining specifics of the material selected and limiting the type of material to specific compositions that are either heat treated or hardened however none of these recitations are further limiting the structure of the bearing, nor has Applicant invented a new material. The claims are merely setting forth known materials that Applicant has selected for their particular purpose, however this is not inventive since it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select at the time of effective filing to modify Giegel and select from any known material, including materials having the features set forth in these claims, 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. See Note in the rejection of claims 3-12 under Sato above.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is listing specific PVD processes, the specific process used is a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2113, which are not structurally limiting. By disclosing a PVD coating the structure of the claim is rendered obvious by Sato.
Regarding claim 24, Giegel discloses that the self-lubricating bearing is a spherical bearing or a journal bearing (see figure 1b showing a spherical bearing).
Regarding claim 28, Giegel discloses that the inner member has a cylindrical bore (17) extending axially therethrough, the bore being defined by an interior surface having another self-lubricating liner (20A) adhered thereto (note the shape of the bore is the same as that shown in the instant application), and the self-lubricating bearing further comprises a shaft (11) extending through the bore, the shaft having a cylindrical exterior surface and being in sliding relation to the inner member.
Giegel does not disclose another physical vapor deposition coating on the exterior surface of the shaft.
However, in further view of the teachings of Sato, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to further modify Giegel and add a PVD coating on the exterior surface of the shaft, since as taught by Sato, the use of a PVD coating in combination with the lubrication liner provides a bearing with a stable sliding surface over a long period of time (paragraph 0020 of Sato).
Regarding claim 30, Giegel in view of Sato discloses that the other physical vapor deposition coating comprises chromium nitride, titanium nitride (see paragraph 0020 of Sato), tungsten carbide or zirconium nitride.
Regarding claim 31, the claim is listing specific PVD processes, the specific process used is a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2113, which are not structurally limiting. By disclosing a PVD coating the structure of the claim is rendered obvious by Sato.
Regarding claim 32, the recitation is defining the intended use of the bearing, this is not structurally limiting the bearing itself, regardless of where the bearing is used the structure remains the same. Since all the bearing structure is disclosed as addressed above claim 32 is rejected.
Claim(s) 13-14, 19-23, 26 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giegel, US PGPub 2014/0254965, in view of Sato, US PGPub 2005/0036722, and Dam, USP 5,700,094, as applied above, and further in view of Merg, USP 10,480,569.
Regarding claims 13 and 29, Giegel in view of Sato does not disclose the use of a lubricant between the corresponding liner and the pvd coating [clms 13 and 29].
Merg further teaches using a grease (50) between a self-lubricating liner (70) and a PVD coating (placed on the outside of 12, see column 4, lines 32-38) to reduce the torque requirement between the relatively rotating parts (column 1, lines 49-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to add a lubricant between the liner and PVD coating, as taught by Merg, for the predictable result of further improving the performance of the bearing by providing and additional friction reduction agent between the moving parts which ultimately leads to a reduction in torque as stated by Merg.
Regarding claim 14, Merg discloses that with the lubricant comprises a silicone grease (see column 6, lines 49-52) with a plurality of first self-lubricating particles dispersed therein (grease is made of a series of lubricating particles, the claim does not specifically limit the claim to any type of particles, all oils and greases are made of lubricating particles under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase).
Regarding claims 19-23, Giegel further discloses the liner comprises a woven material with a thermosetting resin with a plurality of second self-lubricating particles dispersed in resin (see paragraph 0033 disclosing a fiber weave, thermoset resin and the use of additional fibers within the PTFE layer) [clm 19], where the woven material comprises a fabric of PTFE (the disclosure of a ptfe impregnated with a thermoset resin in paragraph 0033 indicates that the ptfe is a standalone fabric or layer of material that is saturated with the resin) [clm 20], wherein the liner comprises a thermal-consolidated, machinable, moldable non-woven material (the indication of the PTFE being bonded with and the indication of separate fibers in paragraph 0033 indicates the alternatives covered by “bonded or impregnated” includes both woven and non-woven configurations, regardless each uses a thermoset resin that once set can be machined and absent a fabric layer can be molded) [clm 21], where the non-woven material comprises second self-lubricating particles (other fibers disclosed in paragraph 0033) [clm 22], and wherein the resin is a phenolic resin (see paragraph 0033) [clm 23]. Note if it is later determined that the broad disclosure in paragraph 0033 doesn’t cover any or all of the claims listed above see the alternative rejections above.
Regarding claim 26, Giegel does not disclose that the outer ring has at least one axial spit.
However, Merg further teaches that in a spherical bearing the inner ring can include at least one split (13a or 13b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Giegel in view of Sato and configure the inner ring as a split ring with at least one axial split, as further taught by Merg, since substituting between a known one-piece inner ring and a known two piece inner ring provides the same predictable result of rotatably supporting the inner ring element of the bearing relative to the outer ring element. In addition, using a split ring provides the known benefit of simplify manufacturing by removing the need for a complex insertion method or the need of machining load slots in the outer ring.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giegel, US PGPub 2014/0254965, in view of Sato, US PGPub 2005/0036722, Dam, USP 5,700,094 and Merg, USP 10,480,569, as applied above, and further in view of Sakairi, USP 8,915,648.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Giegel in view of Sato and Merg, while disclosing silicone grease (Merg) which ultimately has self-lubricating particles as explained in the rejection of claim 14 above, does not disclose that the plurality of first self-lubricating particles comprises polytetrafluoroethylene [clm 17] and that the polytetrafluoroethylene comprises at least one of a powder, a floc and fibers [clm 18].
Sakairi teaches the use of silicone grease in a bearing wherein the grease includes particles comprising polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, see column 18, lines 59-64) and more specifically a powder form of PTFE (see column 18, lines 59-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Giegel in view of Sato and Merg and replace the silicone grease with any previously known silicone grease, including one that includes PTFE particles in the form of a powder, as taught by Sakairi, 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. In addition, substituting one known grease for another known grease is not inventive but rather a matter of routine substituting of known equivalents.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giegel, US PGPub 2014/0524965, in view of Sato, US PGPub 2005/0036722 and Dam, USP 5,700,094, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Porter, US PGPub 2013/0287326.
Giegel does not disclose that the outer ring has at least one axial split therein.
Porter teaches that in a spherical bearing the outer ring (16) can include at least axial split (in this case two segmenting the ring into two parts 16a and 16b, see paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Giegel and configure the outer ring as a split outer ring with at least one axial split, as taught by Porter, since substituting between a known one-piece outer ring and a known two piece outer ring provides the same predictable result of rotatably supporting the inner ring element of the bearing. In addition, using a split ring provides the known benefit of simplify manufacturing by removing the need for a complex insertion method or the need of machining load slots in the outer ring.
Claim(s) 33 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, US PGPub 2005/0036722, , in view of Dam, USP 5,700,094, and further in view of Merg, USP 10,480,569.
Regarding claim 33, Sato discloses a self-lubricating bearing, comprising: an outer ring (1) having a concave inside surface defining an interior area of the outer ring (curved inner surface); an inner member (3) having a convex exterior surface (curved outer surface), the inner member being disposed at least partially in the interior area, the convex exterior surface having a physical vapor deposition [PVD] coating (4, it is noted that how the coating is applied is a product by process recitation, see MPEP 2113, however Sato discloses the same PVD process, see paragraph 0021) thereon; and a self-lubricating liner (2, see paragraph 0026, PTFE is a self-lubricating material) bonded (using phenolic resin as a paste, see paragraph 0026) to the concave inside surface, wherein the outer ring comprises a first metallic alloy, and the inner member comprises a second metallic alloy (see paragraph 0022), and wherein the concave inside surface and the convex exterior surface are continuous, seal-free surfaces (Sato illustrates a bearing where the surfaces do not include a seal feature and are continuous).
Sato further discloses that the physical vapor deposition coating comprises titanium nitride (see paragraph 0020) which is one of the materials disclosed in the instant application.
Sato does not disclosure that the physical vapor deposition coating is chromium nitride, an alternate material listed in the disclosure and previously claimed in claim 15 in the alternative.
Dam teaches a coating used in a bearing where chromium nitride is listed as an alternative to titanium nitride (see column 2, lines 45-51) and Dam further disclose that the chromium nitride can be applied by physical vapor deposition (see column 2, lines 62-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Sato and use any known alternative to titanium nitride as a bearing coating, including chromium nitride, as taught by Dam, 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.
Sato also does not disclose the use of a lubricant between the corresponding liner and the pvd coating.
Merg further teaches using a grease (50) between a self-lubricating liner (70) and a PVD coating (placed on the outside of 12, see column 4, lines 32-38) to reduce the torque requirement between the relatively rotating parts (column 1, lines 49-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to add a lubricant between the liner and PVD coating, as taught by Merg, for the predictable result of further improving the performance of the bearing by providing and additional friction reduction agent between the moving parts which ultimately leads to a reduction in torque as stated by Merg.
Regarding claim 35, the recitation is defining the intended use of the bearing, this is not structurally limiting the bearing itself, regardless of where the bearing is used the structure remains the same. Since all the bearing structure is disclosed as addressed above claim 33 is rejected. The recitation “sized” is not limiting the bearing to any specific size. However, it is noted that Sato discloses that the field of the invention is related to supports of aircraft flaps (see paragraph 0003) which would include ailerons, elevators and rudders.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant presents the same general arguments as previously presented, however this time an affidavit is filed in addition to the arguments. As the arguments are general the same and Applicant has not specifically responded to any specific argument presented in the previous final office action the rejection is maintained and the previous arguments are repeated below.
Applicant again argues that the present application determined that the lower hardness provided by chromium nitride is beneficial and argues that none of the prior art of record anticipate the combination of materials.
More specifically in this argument Applicant argues that Sato and Merg direct one skilled in the art toward harder coatings rather than a softer coating of chromium nitride. This argument does not address that actual combination which relies of the use of Dam, however the argument is presenting the case that Sato and Merg teach away from chromium nitride however there is no disclosure in Sato and Merg that a softer material cannot be used and the combination with Dam is demonstrating that the materials in question are known alternatives. Therefore, regardless of what reason one may select a particular material, unless explicitly stated that another material cannot be used in its place, the argument regarding Sato and Merg individual is not persuasive.
With regard to Dam, Applicant argues that the reference is directed toward metal on metal contact, however Dam is not relied upon for the structural arrangement of the device put rather the teaching that titanium nitride and chromium nitride are known interchangeable materials, Applicant is not arguing this aspect of the rejection or the reference.
The argument also does not address that the rejection points out that, while not claimed, titanium nitride is also a viable option in the specification of the instant application. The argument presented is that titanium nitride is not good because its two hard and thus the reference to Sato and Merg are not applicable, however this argument is contradicting Applicant’s own disclosure which lists titanium nitride as a viable material. The argument presented does not align with the actual facts submitted in Applicant’s own specification and is thus not persuasive.
Applicant presents an additional, and similar argument to those previously made, that the chromium nitride and liner combination “surprisingly provide longer wear”, Applicant cites paragraph 0062 to support this claim.
Paragraph 0062 does not contribute the results solely to chromium nitride as Applicant is arguing and uses additional elements not recited by the claim. Paragraph 0062 is describing a test conducted, the conditions of the test and the result does not show any unexpected result. It appears that from the test Applicant has now reached the conclusion that this is preferred but having a preferred arrangement when other areas of the specification define alternatives that can be used is not persuasive nor does it establish an form of unexpected results.
As stated in the previous remarks, there is no evidence of any unexpected results in the original disclosure and that the argument is inconsistent with the original disclosure. Paragraph 00019 of the original disclosure states that in addition to chromium nitride other materials such as titanium nitride, tungsten carbide and zirconium nitride can be used. If other materials are usable instead of chromium nitride this is evidence that the material does not yield any unexpected results and is merely one of numerous materials that can provide similar benefits. Based on the evidence in the original disclosure this argument is not persuasive or supported by the facts presented by Applicant in the original filing. Applicant has not presented any argument regarding this position which was presented in the previous action and has only presented a modify version of the previously argument. The argument continues to suggest that chromium nitride is critical to the practice of the invention however this argument is not supported by the original filing, for this reason the argument as a whole is unpersuasive and the rejection maintained.
With regards to the newly filed affidavit Applicant argues that this document provides evidence to support the opinions expressed in the remarks.
The “Polanco Affidavit” is expressing the opinion of one of the inventors (see item 10) of the instant application and does not provide any factual evidence. In item 10 the affidavit also points out what each individual reference discloses, however the rejection is under 35 USC 103, not 35 USC 102. The claims are rejected under 35 USC 103 so the question is what does the prior art suggest to one skilled in the art, as addressed above this suggestion is that the coatings and materials were all previously known and thus one skilled in the art could arrive at the combination presented by the claimed invention.
Item 11 further expresses the opinion that the invention is the result of finding that chromium nitride provided a benefit even though it is a softer material. However, discovering a new benefit does not make a device inventive, see MPEP 2112(I). This item, in combination with the other items later in the document, appear to be making the case for an unexpected result, without explicitly stating such, however the later items in the affidavit don’t meet the requirements to establish unexpected results, see MPEP 716.02.
What the data provided later in the affidavit does is show two tests between two different objects, but there is no disclosure of what was expected from using the material combination verse what actually happened. In other words comparing to different objects, one of the invention and another random sample, does not establish any unexpected results but is rather showing that the invention is allegedly better than a different sample. In addition these examples tested are a specific species, the claims are not limited to the specific species that Applicant has provided the data for nor is it clear from the affidavit if these samples had limitations such as the particular steels used that are recited in the later dependent claims. In other words, the data provided by Applicant is not linked to specific claim requirements and at least the independent claim don’t recite the specific combination of materials in the sample data provided by Applicant. If the invention is a particular material combination all of those materials should appear in the independent claim, as it currently stands the independent claim is generic with the only material specifically claimed being chromium nitride, however there are underlying materials recited by the claims which would have influence in an overall load test, the affidavit also states that a specific Uniflon®E liner is used, yet this liner is not claimed, it appears that is a specific type of PTFE however dependent claims, not the independent claim, only generically recite PTFE. Because of these issues it cannot be said that what Applicant has provided in the affidavit is evidence of the claims defining an invention resulting from unexpected results. At best the affidavit is showing that this particular example compared to another example is superior but without reciting any specific materials in the independent claims that would match the example provided the affidavit is unpersuasive.
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