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 .
The amendment 12/03/2025 has been considered and entered. The response has been considered and found to be persuasive over the rejections over Ziegler et al. (WO 2014/049137) in view of Taipalus et al. (DE 10 2010 018 328A1) for failing to teach the size and aspect ratio of the fillers as amended. Therefore, the previous rejections are withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejections are made below as necessitated by the amendment.
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 – 20 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.
Independent claims 1 – 3 each recites a primary dimension of not greater than 30 microns (thus, having a upper limit of 30) and a secondary dimension of not greater than about 20 microns, with an aspect ratio of at least about 2:1 which is indefinite, because if the primary dimension is up to about 30 microns, the secondary dimension cannot exceed about 15 microns and lower.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler et al. (WO 2014/049137) in view of Taipalus et al. (DE 10 2010 018 328A1) and further in view of Yamamoto (JP 2002-188641)
In regards to claim 1, Ziegler teaches maintenance-free slide bearing with a combined adhesive sliding layer (title). The continuous phase and the discontinuous phase of the sliding layer can comprise a filler which can be any conventionally used fillers which are the same or different fillers (page 10 lines 2 – 7). The sliding layer comprises fillers such as wollastonite, barium sulfate, glass bead, carbon, bronze, graphite, molybdenum sulfide, aluminum oxide, etc., and their combinations at amounts of from 1 to 90% by volume (page 13 lines 5 – 22; page 14 lines 1 – 5; page 15 lines 6 – 21). Since each filler or combination is useful at from 1 to 90%, it would be obvious to use each of the barium sulfate and wollastonite at amounts overlapping the claimed ranges.
Polymers present in the continuous phase are include PAI, PEEK, LCP, PTFE etc. (page 15 lines 10 – 16; 28 – 33). Ziegler does not recite the presence of pigments or their sizes and amounts.
Taipalus similarly teaches slide bearings having similar support such as a bronze support, and similar sliding layer matrix which can comprise fluoropolymers and recites the use of pigments (at 1 to 15% by volume) as additional fillers with boron nitride (at 5 to 25% by volume) for promoting low wear and low friction coefficient, and wherein the pigments having particle sizes of from 0.05 to 3 mm, and the boron nitride has particle sizes of from 0.7 to 7 mm, and a fraction at 0.1 mm or less (specification).
Thus, it would have been obvious for persons of ordinary skill in the art at the claim was filed to have added the fillers of Taipalus comprising boron nitride and pigments and in their recited amounts and to have similar sizes and aspect ratios as recited by Zeigler, into the composition of Ziegler, as Taipalus teaches that they provide wear and friction improvement in similar slide bearings.
Ziegler and Taipalus fail to teach the particle sizes of the barium sulfate and wollastonite fillers nor recites the aspect ratio of the fillers as claimed.
Yamamoto teaches fillers for sliding member such as slide bearings such as wollastonite etc., having particle diameter of preferably from 0.2 to 30 microns and an aspect ratio of 3 to 200 (specification). Thus, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claims were filed would have found it obvious to have provided the fillers of Ziegler and Taipalus to have similar dimensions as taught by Yamamoto for use in similar slide bearings such as those of Ziegler, as Yamamoto teaches suitable fillers and dimensions useful for similar applications.
In regards to claim 2, Zeigler, Yamamoto and Taipalus combined teach the slide bearing having the claimed limitations. Zeigler teaches the slid bearing are useful in commercial industry such as automotive, bike, solar, phone hinges, ball joints etc., and thus provides an assembly having the slide bearing between two components (page 18 lines 1 – 14).
In regards to claim 3, Zeigler, Yamamoto and Taipalus combined teach the slide bearing having the substrate and sliding layer having the claimed limitations and thus provides the method comprising applying a sliding layer to a provided substrate which intrinsically provides the claimed method.
In regards to claims 4 – 6, Zeigler, Yamamoto and Taipalus combined teach the bearing having the claimed limitations and which would be expected to provide similar properties as claimed. Zeigler teaches the bearing comprises fluoropolymers such as PTFE, ETFE, FEP etc., (page 15).
In regards to claims 7 – 9, Zeigler, Yamamoto and Taipalus combined teach the bearing. Zeigler teaches a metal support containing metals such as zinc, copper, and alloys such as bronze etc., and wherein the surface of the support and be a perforated layer (sheet), mesh (i.e., intermeshing) etc. (pages 7, 8).
In regards to claims 10 – 13, Zeigler, Yamamoto and Taipalus combined teach the bearing. Zeigler teaches the polymer and filler as previously stated.
In regards to claims 14 – 17, Zeigler, Yamamoto and Taipalus combined teach the bearing. Zeigler teaches the sliding layer has a thickness of from about 0.01 to about 1.5 mm (page 6 lines 20 – 23). The slide bearing itself which comprises the support and the slide layer can be very small in size such as a pico bearing up to 500 mm, and thus the size of the support would be expected to overlap the claimed range (page 18 lines 1 – 3).
In regards to claims 18, 20, Zeigler, Yamamoto and Taipalus combined teach the bearing. Zeigler teaches a support that has surface roughness of 1 micron up to 400 microns and which comprises an adhesive layer and is attached to the sliding layer (page 7 lines 13 – 36). Since the slide layer can have a thickness of from 0.01 to 1.5 mm, it appears that the portions of one layer can be embedded in another layer. The slide layer is extruded on and in direct contact with the metal support (page 12 lines 14 – 19). Since there are protrusions or surface roughness such that parts of one layer is embedded in the other layer, then simultaneously, both layers are embedded in each other.
In regards to claim 19, Zeigler, Yamamoto and Taipalus combined teach the bearing. While Zeigler does not particularly recite steps of cutting blanks, it is conventional in order to obtain appropriate or required bearing sizes and persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claim was filed would have found it obvious. By cutting the blank, a semi-finished bearing of the claim is provided. For instance, Xing et al. (CN 102211172B) teaches cutting of bearing blank to obtain a required size during manufacturing [0019]. Thus, at least in view of Xing, the claimed limitation is obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are moot as they do not apply to the combinations of references currently relied upon for making the rejections.
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 TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771