DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Amendment received on 02/16/2026, the examiner has carefully considered the amendments. The examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 19 and 34.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to require the radiation crosslinked plastic of the running surface of the claimed roller is a polyamide 66 having a structure that does not have a penetration depth of deeper than 0.2 mm at the location of the text marking during a soldering iron test as defined in the amended claim. While Feulner does not set forth subjecting the radiation crosslinked polyamide 66 to a soldering iron test nor the penetration depth of said test, Feulner does set forth exposing said polyamide 66 to radiation to crosslink, as well as, setting forth a gel content of 54%. The courts have upheld products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If applicants are of the position that the prior art does not, in fact, possess the same properties as the claimed composition, the claimed composition should be amended to distinguish itself from the prior art--In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In absence of evidence to the contrary and/or unexpected results, it is deemed the rejection over Feulner et al (Wear, 2010), in view of MKL Bearings still stands, wherein claims 33 and 35 will be removed. Please find below.
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) 17- 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feulner et al (Wear, 2010), in view of MKL Bearings—OEM sliding door bearing wheel product description with Way Back publication date of December 01, 2020 (see PTO-892), as evidenced by Nagasawa et al (2017) .
Feulner sets forth mechanical parts, such as gears and bearing obtained from molded polyamide polymers having improved tribological properties, such as wear and friction resistance. The reference teaches that radiation crosslinking of thermoplastic polymers, such as polyamides, increases strength in the amorphous regions. Feulner sets forth the use of cooled molds in the injection molding process the regions are located near the part’s surface which is critical in tribological applications. Radiation crosslinking of said thermoplastics allows for the combined properties of temperature resistance and extension of operating range of a mechanical parts obtained from such--(see Introduction and Motivation section).
The primary difference is Feulner does not expressly set forth the bearing has the same structure as instantly claimed, i.e., having a main body with a running surface pointing radically outward, wherein the running surface is coupleable to a guide rail of the sliding door; and a central bore, which extends at least partially through the main body, for receiving a bearing arrangement for rotatable mounting of the main body. However, Feulner sets forth injection molded mechanical parts for use in sliding contact, such as bearings and gears (Introduction section and Abstract – teaches all machine elements consist of radiation cross-linked polymer). It is known that molded mechanical parts, such as bearings, having a main body with a running surface pointing radically outward, wherein said running surface is coupleable to a guide rail of a sliding door and a central bore, which extends at least partially through the main body, for receiving a bearing arrangement for rotatable mounting of the main body and at least the running surface consisting of polyamide is known, as taught/seen by MKL Bearings—OEM sliding door bearing wheel product description —see PTO-892. MKLBearing sells forth roller (bearings) having the structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
380
325
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Therefore, it would have been within the skill level of an ordinary artisan to use the injection moldable radiation crosslinked polyamide thermoplastics having a gel value at least of 54 %, as set forth by Feulner, to obtain known mechanical parts, such as roller/bearings for sliding doors, as taught Home Depot advertisements, in absence of evidence to the contrary and/or unexpected results. Thus, is deemed the roller of claims 17-19 are obvious.
Regrading claims 20-23 and 26: Feulner sets forth crosslinking polyamide polymers in the presence of 4 % by weight of a triallyl isocyanurate crosslinking agent with exposure to electron beam radiation having a radiation dose of 33 kGy in an injection molding process, wherein the exposure to radiation is carried out in multiple steps to keep the thermal load low. Feulner sets forth said irradiated parts has a gel value in formic acid when molded at temperatures of 100 deg. C of 54 %—see table 3 on page 909 and page 906, section 3--right column 3rd paragraph to page 907, left column 1st full paragraph.
Claim(s) 24-25, 27-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feulner as applied to claims 17- 23 and 26 above.
Feulner is set forth above as teaching crosslinked polyamide mechanical parts obtained from compositions comprising at least 4 % of a crosslinking triallyl isocyanurate having a gel value after injection molding at a temperature of 100 deg. C of 54 %.
Regarding claims 24-25: Feulner does not expressly set forth an addition amount of triallyl isocyanurate (crosslinking agent) from 12.5 % and 17.5 % or approximately 15 % as found in claims 24-25. However, the courts have upheld: where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been within the skill level of an ordinary artisan to tailor the crosslinker addition amount to tailor crosslinking density of the polyamide mechanical parts in absence of evidence to the contrary and/or unexpected results, as evidenced by the teachings of Nagasawa—see Abstract and Conclusion. Thus, claims 24-25 obvious in view of the reference and known teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 27-32: Feulner does not expressly set forth the modulus of elasticity as found in claims 27-28; the Charpy impact toughness as found in claims 29-30, or the Charpy notched impact toughness as found in claims 31-32. However, Feulner sets forth radiation crosslinked polyamides having gel values as instantly claimed and comprising the same compositions, i.e., polyamides crosslinked with triallyl isocyanurates. However, products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If applicants are of the position that the prior art does not, in fact, possess the same properties as the claimed composition, the claimed composition should be amended to distinguish itself from the prior art--In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, it is known that there is an inverse relationship between the wear coefficient and Charpy impact toughness, as well as a positive one with wear resistance. Materials with high hardness and high impact toughness generally exhibit better wear resistance, meaning they have a lower wear coefficient. And since the PTO is not equipped to conduct experimentation in order to determine whether Applicant’s composition differs and, if so, to what extent, from the discussed reference. Therefore, with the showing of the reference, the burden of establishing non-obviousness by objective evidence is shifted to the Applicants.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33 and 35 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: A search of the prior art has fails to reveal a teaching of irradiating after the injection molded roller has been demolded and arranged in an elastic covering, as required in the method of claim 33.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. references N to T on page 1 and N to P on page 2 of the attached PTO-892 set forth radiation curable bioplastics used in methods for obtaining bearings and roller, wherein said bioplastics include polyamide. None of the cited references set forth the instantly claimed roller structure and are silent with regard to the gel value in formic acid.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SANZA L MCCLENDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1074. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Heidi Riviere-Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/SANZA L. McCLENDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
SMc