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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/1/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/1/2025, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Gierl (DE 10 2006 051544) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Upon further consideration, the previously withdrawn rejections over Lang et al. (US 2007/0042218) and SKF (DE 2020 18106176U) are re-entered in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the bearing component further comprises a plurality of radially spaced layers applied one atop the other”. It is unclear whether this claim is limiting the subject matter of claim 1 to one of the two presented options (i.e., axially or radially adjacent layers), or whether this claim is further limiting the scope of claim 1 by requiring an additional plurality of radially spaced layers in addition to the already recited plurality of axially spaced layers or radially spaced layers. For purposes of examination, the former is presumed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
PNG
media_image1.png
311
311
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 4, 7-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lang et al. (US 2007/0042218).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Lang teaches a bearing (¶ 1). The bearing comprises a first peripheral coating and a second peripheral coating with an additional coating formed in between (¶¶ 19-21). The layers are formed by cold gas spraying (¶ 8), and formed on a cylindrical shell (¶ 57, see also Fig. 2), which corresponds to the claimed “metal film carrier”. These layers extend in a radial direction.
Regarding claims 4, 9-10 and 12, claims 4, 9-10 and 12 further limit the scope of claim 1 with respect to the “axially adjacent” alternative. However, because claim 1 is recited in the alternative, the limitations of claims 4, 9-10 and 12 are not necessarily required if the claimed component is the “radially adjacent” embodiment. Accordingly, Lang reads on claims 4, 9-10 and 12.
Regarding claim 7, Lang teaches the first peripheral layer includes a matrix element (¶ 12), a soft phase (¶ 13), and a hard phase (¶ 16), each chosen for different properties: matrix element for mechanical strength (¶ 12), soft phase for tribological properties (¶ 13), and hard phase for wear resistance properties (¶ 16). Lang also teaches the second peripheral layer is chosen for its strength characteristics (¶ 20).
Regarding claim 8, the soft or hard phases of Lang exist in at least two regions as they are referred to in the plural, and correspond to the claimed first and third regions. The matrix material corresponds to the claimed second region. These materials are distributed throughout the layer and must be arranged in at least a radial and/or axial direction as two of the three possible dimensions the regions may be distributed across.
Claims 1, 4, 7-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by SKF (DE 2020 18106176U).
Regarding claim 1, SKF teaches a bearing (¶ 1). The bearing comprises first and second layers formed one above the other by means of a cold spray process (¶ 24). The bearing is in the form of a ring (¶ 17) and thus, these layers extend radially. SKF also teaches the substrate is a ring (25) and thus can be considered a metal carrier film.
Regarding claims 4, 9-10 and 12, claims 4, 9-10 and 12 further limit the scope of claim 1 with respect to the “axially adjacent” alternative. However, because claim 1 is recited in the alternative, the limitations of claims 4, 9-10 and 12 are not necessarily required if the claimed component is the “radially adjacent” embodiment. Accordingly, Lang reads on claims 4, 9-10 and 12.
Regarding claim 7, SKF teaches the first layer is an anti-corrosion layer (¶ 24) and teaches Zn or Al may form a corrosion protection layer (¶ 22). SKF teaches the second layer is a friction modifying layer (¶ 24), and teaches possible metals used for the layer include tin and copper (¶ 13). These are different metals and have different densities. SKF teaches the materials chosen for these layers are picked for their properties, such as anti-corrosion, friction-modifying, etc. (¶ 23).
Regarding claim 8, the coating matrix and hard particles of SKF exist in at least two regions as they are referred to in the plural, and the hard particles correspond to the claimed first and third regions. The matrix material corresponds to the claimed second region. These materials are distributed throughout the layer and must be arranged in at least a radial and/or axial direction as two of the three possible dimensions the regions may be distributed across.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is allowed.
Reasons for allowance appear in the previous Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights