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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 18, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the final Office Action dated February 18, 2026 was submitted with the request for continued examination on June 18, 2026. Claims 1 and 15 were amended. Claims 8-10, 13, 20 and 21 were previously canceled. Claims 1-7, 11, 12, 14-19 and 22-25 are currently pending.
The amendments to claims 1 and 15 have overcome the prior art rejections of claims 1-7, 11, 12, 14-19 and 22-25 (¶¶ 8-26 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection of these claims have been made as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, 6, 7 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0333287 A1, cited in previous Office Action) in view of Snellman (International Patent Publication No. WO 2008/062095 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zou discloses a system ([0004] of Zou, solid substrate with adhered graphite coating; [0019] of Zou, coated substrate placed into sliding contact with opposing surface of counterface thereby forming a system) comprising: a first surface ([0019] of Zou, coated surface of substrate) and a second surface operational to associate with one another ([0019] of Zou, surface of counterface contacting surface of substrate), wherein at least one of the first surface and the second surface comprises an adhesive layer and a graphite layer positioned on the adhesive layer ([0010]-[0011] of Zou, substrate provided with a two layer coating of polydopamine and graphite; [0016] of Zou, graphite coating formed on polydopamine or PDA substrate and heated; [0021] of Zou, resulting graphite coating has high durability when subjected to tribological testing; PDA layer would therefore function as an adhesive to stick the graphite to the substrate).
Zou does not disclose that each of the first and second surfaces comprises the adhesive and graphite layers and that the graphite layers of the first surface and the second surface are operable to associate with one another to reduce the coefficient of friction between the first surface and the second surface when compared to first and second surfaces without graphite layers and adhesive layers. Snellman, however, discloses applying dry film lubricants such as graphite to both sliding surfaces (2:6-10 and 2:29-32 of Snellman). According to Snellman, applying the lubricant to both sliding surfaces enables achieving the lowest friction and thus also a significant reduction in heat generation (2:29-30 of Snellman). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the adhered graphite coating to both sliding surfaces in the system of Zou. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the lowest friction and to reduce heat generation as taught by Snellman (2:29-30 of Snellman).
Regarding claim 2, Zou discloses that the adhesive layer comprises an adhesive material comprising a polymer ([0010]-[0011] of Zou, substrate provided with a two layer coating of polydopamine and graphite; polydopamine which is a polymer therefore functions as the adhesive).
Regarding claim 3, Zou discloses that the polymer comprises polydopamine (PDA) ([0010]-[0011] of Zou, substrate provided with a two layer coating of polydopamine and graphite; polydopamine which is a polymer therefore functions as the adhesive).
Regarding claim 4, Zou discloses that the graphite layer is derived from a dispersion of graphite materials ([0016] of Zou, graphite diluted in water used to form coating; graphite would necessarily be dispersed in the water).
Regarding claim 6, Zou discloses that each of the first surface and second surface are independently selected from the group consisting of a metal surface, a steel surface, a galvanized steel surface, a plastic surface, a polymer surface, a composite surface, a ceramic surface, or combinations thereof ([0018] of Zou, graphite coating formed on stainless steel substrate; [0019] of Zou, chrome steel ball used as counterface; surfaces are therefore metal and steel; claim only requires one of the recited types of materials for each surface).
Regarding claim 7, Zou discloses that the graphite layer of at least one of the first surface and the second surface reduces the friction between the first surface and the second surface (Abstract of Zou, coating reduces friction), and wherein the adhesive layer maintains the position of the graphite layer on at least one of the first surface and the second surface ([0004] of Zou, graphite is well adhered to substrate; [0010] of Zou, PDA layer between graphite and substrate would necessarily provide adhesion and maintain the position of the graphite on the surface of the substrate).
Regarding claim 15, Zou discloses a method of modifying a system comprising a first surface and a second surface operational to associate with one another ([0004] of Zou, solid substrate with adhered graphite coating; [0019] of Zou, coated substrate placed into sliding contact with opposing surface of counterface thereby forming a modified system), said method comprising: applying an adhesive material to at least one of the first surface and the second surface to form an adhesive layer on at least one of the first surface and the second surface ([0015] of Zou, substrate coated with DPA layer); and applying a graphite material onto the adhesive layer to form a graphite layer on the adhesive layer ([0016] of Zou, graphite layer coated on top of PDA layer; [0004] of Zou, graphite coating is “well adhered” to substrate; PDA layer therefore is an adhesive).
Zou does not disclose that each of the first and second surfaces comprises the adhesive and graphite layers and that the graphite layers of the first surface and the second surface are operable to associate with one another to reduce the coefficient of friction between the first surface and the second surface when compared to first and second surfaces without graphite layers and adhesive layers. Snellman, however, discloses applying dry film lubricants such as graphite to both sliding surfaces (2:6-10 and 2:29-32 of Snellman). According to Snellman, applying the lubricant to both sliding surfaces enables achieving the lowest friction and thus also a significant reduction in heat generation (2:29-30 of Snellman). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the adhered graphite coating to both sliding surfaces in the system of Zou. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the lowest friction and to reduce heat generation as taught by Snellman (2:29-30 of Snellman).
Regarding claim 16, Zou discloses that each of the applying steps comprises spray coating ([0024] of Zou, PDA and graphite can be applied by spray coating).
Regarding claim 17, Zou discloses that the method is utilized to reduce friction between the first surface and the second surface (Abstract of Zou, coating reduces friction).
Regarding claim 18, Zou discloses that the adhesive material comprises a polymer comprising polydopamine (PDA) ([0011] of Zou).
Claims 4, 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou in view of Snellman as applied to claims 1 and 15 above and further in view of Spahr et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0256778 A1, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 19, Zou does not specifically disclose that the graphite layer is derived from a dispersion of graphite materials as recited in claim 4 or that the graphite materials comprise non-exfoliated graphite as recited in claims 5 and 19. Spahr, however, discloses a non-exfoliated graphite powder (Abstract of Spahr) which is provided as a dispersion in water or an organic solvent ([0070] of Spahr) and which has high lubricity and mechanical properties and which can be used as a lubricant ([0062] of Spahr). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dispersion of non-exfoliated graphite powder of Spahr to form the graphite coating in the system or method of Zou. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a graphite coating having high lubricity and mechanical strength as taught by Spahr ([0062] of Spahr).
Claims 11, 12, 14 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou in view of Snellman as applied to claims 1 and 15 above and further in view of in view of Lewis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0003973 A1, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Zou does not specifically disclose that the system comprises a conveyor system. Snellman, however, discloses coating the surfaces of a loading shoe and a belt in a fiber web machine with a dry lubricant such as graphite (1:4-7 and 2:6-9 of Snellman). Lewis discloses applying cured lubricant coatings to conveyor surfaces such as conveyor belts (Abstract, [0016] of Lewis). According to Lewis, the coatings have very low coefficients of friction and provide wear resistance to the conveyor parts ([0005] of Lewis). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the parts of a conveyor system as a substrate in the system of Zou. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide wear resistance to the conveyor parts as taught by Snellman and Lewis ([0005] of Lewis).
Regarding claims 12 and 23, Lewis does not specifically disclose that the first surface comprises a conveyor belt surface, and wherein the second surface comprises a conveyor bed surface. Moreover, Lewis discloses coating parts of a conveyor system that include conveyor belts, tracks, chains and chute guides ([0016] of Lewis) but does not specifically disclose coating the surface of the belt associated with (i.e., in sliding engagement with) a conveyor bed surface. Snellman, however, discloses coating both sliding surfaces of a belt system (i.e., a belt and a loading shoe) with a solid lubricant coating such as graphite to reduce friction and heat generation (2:6-10 and 2:29-30 of Snellman; see analysis of claims 1 and 15 above). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat sliding surfaces of the modified system or process, including the sliding surfaces between the conveyor belt and bed with PDA/graphite lubricant coatings. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce friction and heat generation as taught by Snellman (2:6-10 and 2:29-30 of Snellman).
Regarding claims 14 and 25, Zou suggests that the graphite layers of the conveyor bed surface and the conveyor belt surface are operable to reduce the coefficient of friction (COF) between the conveyor bed surface and the conveyor belt surface (Abstract of Zou, coating reduces friction) by at least 30% when compared to conveyor bed and conveyor belt surfaces without graphite layers and adhesive layers (FIG. 4, [0021] of Zou, coefficient of friction is reduced from 0.175 for the “best commercial product” to 0.1 which is an almost 43% reduction in COF), and wherein the adhesive layers on the conveyor bed surface and the conveyor belt surface are operable to maintain the position of the graphite layers on the conveyor bed surface and the conveyor belt surface ([0004] of Zou, graphite coating is well adhered, PDA would therefore maintain position of the graphite on the substrate surfaces).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered to the extent that they apply to the new grounds of rejection but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Micro Surface teaches away from architectures where graphite layers of a first surface and a second surface are operable to associate with one another to reduce the coefficient of friction between surfaces (¶ spanning pp. 6-7 of the amendment). The Office Action, however, is relying upon the newly cited Snellman reference to address this limitation.
The applicant also asserts that Lewis does not teach graphites or any solid lubricant layers and therefore fails to cure the defects of Zou and Micro Surface (pg. 9, third full ¶ of the amendment). The Office Action, however, is relying upon the newly cited Snellman reference in combination with Lewis to address this limitation. Snellman discloses coating both sliding surfaces of a belt system (i.e., a belt and a loading shoe) with a solid lubricant coating such as graphite to reduce friction and heat generation (2:6-10 and 2:29-30 of Snellman).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights