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 dated 05/06/2026 has been considered and entered. The response has been considered but was not found to be persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/26/2026 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.
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 – 7, 9 – 11, 13 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (TW 202116893A)
In regards to claim 1, Sakai teaches liquid crystalline resin composition for ball bearing sliding member containing a liquid crystalline resin A), a particulate filler having a diameter of from 0.3 to 5 mm and present at from 2.5 to 22.5% in the composition B) according to the limitation of micro filler of the claim, a plate-like filler present at from 2.5 to 32.5% in the composition C) (abstract). The filler B can be quartz powder, glass beads, potassium aluminum silicate etc. [0026]. The filler C can be mica preferably having particle size of from 1 to 100 mm or more preferably from 5 to 100 mm or from 10 to 100 mm and thus can also provide the limitation of micro-filler [0030, 0034]. The thickness of the mica particles is from 0.01 to 1 mm, thus providing an aspect ratio of particle size to thickness that overlaps the claimed range [0035].
Epoxy polymer D can be epoxy-olefin copolymer such as glycidyl ester-olefin copolymer D1 which is present at preferably from 1 to 5% in the composition according to the limitation of olefin-copolymer [0039, 0050]. While the preferred amount does not overlap the limitation of at least 7%, it is close enough to make the claimed limitation obvious. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
A mold release agent F can be polyolefin which is present at from 0.1 to 3% in the composition [0052, 0053]. Such polyolefin mold-release agents are known to include polyolefin copolymers and thus makes obvious the olefin copolymer of the claim (see abstract of Isogawa et al. JP 2011-57726A). Thus, when the polyolefin of Isogawa is used as mold release agent in Sakai, the amount of olefin copolymers of the claims is overlapped.
The composition can comprise carbon black at amounts of from 0.5 to 5% according to the limitation of carbon-based filler [0051, 0052]. Combinations of other ingredients may also be present [0054]. Other fillers may also be present such as calcium sulfate etc. [0055].
Sakai teaches the composition for rolling bearing which can comprise other fillers and known substances for synthetic resins such as antioxidants, lubricants, dyes, pigments, etc., but does not particularly recite molybdenum disulfide as claimed [0054].
Ishii et al. (US 2015/0204383) teaches rolling bearing having a synthetic resin composition which can comprise molybdenum disulfide lubricants in the composition for reducing friction [0126, 0161]. Thus, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claim was filed would have found it obvious to have used the lubricant of Ishii in the composition of Sakai, as Sakai allows for the use of known substances and ingredients for synthetic resins for improving the rolling bearing, and since Ishii is similar drawn to synthetic resins and teaches the use of molybdenum disulfide for improving friction properties of the composition. Thus, the wear filler of the claim is provided.
In regards to claim 2, Sakai teaches the composition having the claimed fillers as previously stated [0026].
In regards to claims 3, 4, Sakai teaches the composition wherein the filler C such as mica provides the macro filler of the claim, and wherein the ratio of the macro filler to the micro filler overlaps the claimed ranges.
In regards to claim 5, Sakai teaches the composition wherein filler C is present at amounts overlapping the claimed range.
In regards to claim 6, Sakai teaches the composition wherein the filler C provides the claimed limitation as previously stated.
In regards to claim 7, Sakai teaches the composition wherein filler C can be mica having particle size of from 1 to 100 mm and thus can also provide the limitation of micro filler as previously stated. The mica can be surface treated with silane coupling agent [0036].
In regards to claim 9, Sakai teaches the composition having the olefin repeating unit and glycidyl ester of a,b-unsaturated acid repeating units for D1 [0039].
In regards to claims 10, 11, Sakai teaches the composition having the claimed limitations as previously stated.
In regards to claims 13 – 19, Sakai teaches the ball bearing sliding part comprising the claimed composition as previously stated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sakai and Ishii are not combinable as they are drawn to different compositions. The argument is not persuasive.
Sakai allows for the presence of additional known components such as fillers, lubricants etc., which are useful in synthetic resin compositions and thus provides a motivation for using the known components of Ishii for synthetic resins and useful as lubricants for improving friction.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights