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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new or amended rejections below.
An interview was conducted since in the conclusion section applicant’s representative indicated in bold “Applicant requests that the examiner contact the undersigned representative before issuing a subsequent action”. Examiner also provided references for new structure added to the claims and also indicated that no claims are allowable. The references were also provided to applicants’ representative in form 892 on 5/5/2025 with regard to the structure added to claims now.
Applicants’ argument that amendment to claims are provided to expediting allowance is not persuasive see rejection for claims below.
Applicants’ argument with regard to Official notice regarding rejection below are also not persuasive since examiner has provided references as evidence (US20140117627 teaches material of coating, ).
No claims are allowable in view of the rejections below. It is noted that examiner has provided metal doped DLC which will create diffusion compared to pure DLC coating (see applicants and assignees own applications and/or patents).
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) 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11-12, 15-17, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke (US. 20140117627) in view of Champlin (US. 6234490).
Franke discloses a shaft, comprising a first end and a second end (e.g. 16) opposing the first end, the first end and the second end spanning a length of the shaft (e.g. 16), a wear sleeve (e.g. the wear sleeve in paragraph 0011, figure 5) disposed proximal to the first end and radially surrounding the shaft (e.g. the wear sleeve surrounds the shaft annularly), wherein the wear sleeve comprises a bulk region having an inner diameter surface (e.g. inner diameter of the wear sleeve that is stated in paragraph 0011) and an outer diameter surface (e.g. outer diameter of the wear sleeve) opposing the inner diameter surface, and a coating (e.g. paragraph 0008) disposed on the outer diameter surface, the coating comprising diamond like carbon (e.g. paragraph 0008). Wherein the wear sleeve is configured to rotate about a longitudinal axis of the shaft and to be in contact with at least one of a seal element or a dust guard of a static seal (e.g. seal elements 44 having a 1st seal 44 in contact with the wear sleeve and also a dust seal which is 2nd of 44 contacting with the wear sleeve. Wherein the coating comprises metal doped diamond like carbon (e.g. see paragraph 0008 and claim 6) coating at least partially diffused into the outer diameter surface (e.g. this is the case since metal coating is placed on metallic and/or metal wear sleeve). Wherein the engine further comprising the static seal having at least one sealing element that contacts the coated wear sleeve during operation of the engine (see rejection of claims above). Wherein the wear sleeve is configured to rotate about a longitudinal axis of the shaft (see figure 5 and entire document). The shaft is disposed within a housing (e.g. shaft is radially within the housing 12). At least one first end or the second end extends through an opening defined by the housing (see figure, shaft extends axially through an opening of the housing 12, figure 5). The wear sleeve is in contact with both a seal element (e.g. seal element 44 sealing fluid 10) and a dust guard (e.g. seal element 44 sealing environment in gap 40). Wherein the seal element being mounted to the housing (e.g. 44 are mounted to the housing).
Regarding claim 2: Wherein the shaft comprises a crankshaft (e.g. the shaft capable of rotating and is capable of cranking).
Regarding claim 4: Wherein the coating comprises tungsten doped diamond like coating (e.g. see claim 6).
Regarding claim 8: Franke discloses a machine (e.g. machine not shown in figures with the shaft 16), comprising an engine including a crankshaft with a coated wear sleeve disposed on the crankshaft, wherein the coated wear sleeve includes a bulk region having an inner diameter surface and an outer diameter surface opposing the inner diameter surface, and a coating disposed on the outer diameter surface, the coating characterized by having a lower coefficient of static friction than the bulk region (e.g. that is the case since the lower coefficient is provided by the coating). Wherein the coating comprises metal doped diamond like carbon (e.g. see paragraph 0008 and claim 6) coating at least partially diffused into the outer diameter surface (e.g. this is the case since metal coating is placed on metallic and/or metal wear sleeve).Regarding claim 9: see rejection of claims above. Wherein the wear sleeve is configured to rotate about a longitudinal axis of the shaft (see figure 5 and entire document). The shaft is disposed within a housing (e.g. shaft is radially within the housing 12). At least one first end or the second end extends through an opening defined by the housing (see figure, shaft extends axially through an opening of the housing 12, figure 5). The wear sleeve is in contact with both a seal element (e.g. seal element 44 sealing fluid 10) and a dust guard (e.g. seal element 44 sealing environment in gap 40).
Regarding claim 11: Wherein the coefficient of kinetic friction between the coating and the at least one sealing element is less than 0.2 (e.g. this is the case since the machine has the structure as claimed).
Regarding claim 12: Wherein an operational lifetime of the static seal in contact with the coated wear sleeve is at least 6,000 hours (e.g. this is the case since the machine has the structure as claimed).
Regarding claim 15: Franke discloses a method, comprising forming a bulk region having a ring shape, the bulk region having an inner surface and an outer surface (e.g. formed structure of the ring shape wear sleeve) and depositing a coating layer over at least a portion of the outer surface to form a coated wear sleeve, the coating layer including diamond-like carbon (e.g. see rejection of claim 1). Mounting a static weal seal around and in contact with the coated wear sleeve (one of 44 in contact with the wear sleeve, figure 5). Wherein the coating comprises metal doped diamond like carbon (e.g. see paragraph 0008 and claim 6) coating at least partially diffused into the outer diameter surface (e.g. this is the case since metal coating is placed on metallic and/or metal wear sleeve).Regarding claim 16: The method comprising mounting the coated wear sleeve to a crankshaft (See rejection of claims above, mounted wear sleeve to the crank shaft).
Regarding claim 21: The machine comprising a dust guard that contact the coated wear sleeve during operation of the engine (e.g. dust guard 44 adjacent 38).
Regarding claim 23: The static wear seal comprises a dust guard in contact with the coated wear sleeve (e.g. dust guard 44 adjacent to 38).
Franke discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the seal element defining a plurality of grooves. Champlin discloses seal element that contact a shaft and the seal element having plurality of grooves (e.g. grooves as shown in figures 4-7). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the seal element of Franke with plurality of grooves as taught by Champlin with reasonable expectation of success since the recesses or projections causing a deflecting hydrodynamic force on the fluid film between the packing and shaft such that leakage of the fluid from under the packing set is reduced when compared to normally braided packing under the same conditions (see abstract of Champlin).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-16 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz in view of Bush (US.3785660).
Dietz discloses a shaft, comprising a first end and a second end (e.g. ends of 4) opposing the first end, the first end and the second end spanning a length of the shaft (e.g. figures), a wear sleeve (e.g. 10) disposed proximal to the first end and radially surrounding the shaft (e.g. the wear sleeve surrounds the shaft 4 radially and circumferentially in figure 2, this was also explained to applicants representative in an interview on 8/25/2025), wherein the wear sleeve comprises: a bulk region having an inner diameter surface (e.g. inner diameter of 10) and an outer diameter surface (e.g. outer diameter of 10) opposing the inner diameter surface, and a coating (e.g. paragraph 0023) disposed on the outer diameter surface, the coating comprising diamond like carbon (e.g. paragraph 0023) that at least partially diffused into the outer surface (e.g. this is the case since metallic type diamond like carbon coating is provided on an outer surface of metallic sleeve). Wherein the wear sleeve is configured to rotate about a longitudinal axis of the shaft and to be in contact with at least one of a seal element or a dust guard of a static seal (e.g. seal element 11 having a 1st lip seal in contact with the wear sleeve and also a dust lip contacting with the wear sleeve). Wherein the wear sleeve is configured to rotate about a longitudinal axis of the shaft (see figure 3 and entire document). The shaft is disposed within a housing (e.g. shaft is radially within a housing shown in figure 2). At least one first end or the second end extends through an opening defined by the housing (see figure, the shaft extends axially through an opening of the housing in figure 2). The wear sleeve is in contact with both a seal element (e.g. see figure below) and a dust guard (e.g. see figure below). Wherein the seal element being mounted to the housing (e.g. see figure below). Regarding claim 2, The shaft comprises a crankshaft (e.g. the shaft is of an engine and is a shaft that is capable of cranking). Regarding claim 8, Dietz discloses a machine, comprising a static seal including at least one sealing element (e.g. 11 having static seal contacting housing and sealing elements that contact the wear sleeve 10), an engine including a crankshaft with a coated wear sleeve disposed on the crankshaft, wherein the coated wear sleeve includes a bulk region having an inner diameter surface and an outer diameter surface opposing the inner diameter surface, and a coating disposed on the outer diameter surface, the coating characterized by having a lower coefficient of static friction than the bulk region (e.g. that is the case since the lower coefficient is provided by the coating). Wherein the engine further comprising a static seal having at least one sealing element that contacts the coated wear sleeve during operation of the engine (see rejection above with regard to contacting the wear sleeve). Regarding claim 15, Dietz discloses a method, comprising forming a bulk region having a ring shape, the bulk region having an inner surface and an outer surface (e.g. formed structure of the ring shape wear sleeve), depositing a coating layer over at least a portion of the outer surface to form a coated wear sleeve, the coating layer including diamond-like carbon (e.g. see rejection of claim 1) and mounting a static wear seal around and in contact with the coated wear sleeve (e.g. see rejection above). Regarding claim 16, The method comprising mounting the coated wear sleeve to a crankshaft (See rejection of claim 2, mounted wear sleeve to the crank shaft). Regarding claim 17, The method comprising mounting a static seal around the coated wear sleeve (e.g. see rejection of claims above).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dietz discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the seal element defining a plurality of grooves. Bush discloses a seal (e.g. figures) having a seal element, a dust guard (42) and the seal element having plurality of grooves (88). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the seal element of Franke with plurality of grooves as taught by Bush with reasonable expectation of success since the recesses or projections causing a deflecting hydrodynamic force on the fluid film to reduce leakage by pumping fluid back to fluid environment (see description of figure 14 in Bush).
Dietz discloses the claimed invention except for the diamond like coating being metal doped diamond like coating and the metal is tungsten. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the diamond like coating being tungsten doped diamond like coating with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416., since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Evidence is provided by references on form 892 (US20140117627 and others).
Dietz discloses the claimed invention except the coating has a thickness of at least 0. 5 micrometer (um) and less than 20 um and a hardness exceeding 12 Gigapascal. Discovering an optimum range of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Kulling, 895 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ 2d 1056. Without the showing of some unexpected result. Since applicant has not shown some unexpected result the inclusion of this limitation is considered to be a matter of choice in design. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the coating with at least 0.5 to 20 micrometer and hardness of at least 12 Gigapascal, with reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice. Evidence by assignees own patent or publication (US20150197295, paragraph 0020 “The total thickness of the underlayer and the a-DLC outer layer is preferably within a range from approximately 2.0-20 micrometer. Since the thickness of this coating is negligible, there is no need to change existing clearance designs for the pin and bushing. As a result, existing undercarriage track joint assemblies may be retrofitted to include track pins that include the above-disclosed features.” Also see claims and paragraph 0019). The reference of US20150197295 teaches tetrahedral amorphous carbon, see claims.
Dietz discloses the claimed invention except the coating has a thickness between 1 micrometer and 2 micrometer. Discovering an optimum range of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Kulling, 895 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ 2d 1056. Without the showing of some unexpected result. Since applicant has not shown some unexpected result the inclusion of this limitation is considered to be a matter of choice in design. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the coating with at least 1 to 2 micrometer, with reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice. See evidence reference of US20150197295.
Regarding claim 11: Wherein the coefficient of kinetic friction between the coating and the at least one sealing element is less than 0.2 (e.g. this is the case since the machine has the structure as claimed).
Regarding claim 12: Wherein an operational lifetime of the static seal in contact with the coated wear sleeve is at least 6,000 hours (e.g. this is the case since the machine has the structure as claimed).
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz (see paragraph 0010) in view of Bush and further in view of Examiners official notice.
Dietz discloses the invention as claimed above in paragraph 8 but fails to disclose the process of physical vapor deposition. Examiner provides official notice that to have a coating placed on a member by physical vapor deposition is well known and old. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the coating placed on the wear sleeve by the method of physical vapor deposition with reasonable expectation of success, to provide good adhesion and provide coating that is cost effective (e.g. evidence reference 9970526 teaches many method to provide diamond like carbon coating, see form 892).
Claim(s) 5, 7, 13-14, 20, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke and Champlin.
Franke discloses the claimed invention except the coating has a thickness of at least 0. 5 micrometer (um) and less than 20 um and a hardness exceeding 12 Gigapascal. Discovering an optimum range of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Kulling, 895 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ 2d 1056. Without the showing of some unexpected result. Since applicant has not shown some unexpected result the inclusion of this limitation is considered to be a matter of choice in design. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the coating with at least 0.5 to 20 micrometer and hardness of at least 12 Gigapascal, with reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice. See evidence reference of US20150197295. Evidence by assignees own patent or publication (US20150197295, paragraph 0020 “The total thickness of the underlayer and the a-DLC outer layer is preferably within a range from approximately 2.0-20 micrometer. Since the thickness of this coating is negligible, there is no need to change existing clearance designs for the pin and bushing. As a result, existing undercarriage track joint assemblies may be retrofitted to include track pins that include the above-disclosed features.” Also see claims and paragraph 0019). The reference of US20150197295 teaches tetrahedral amorphous carbon, see claims.
Franke discloses the claimed invention except the coating has a thickness between 1 micrometer and 2 micrometer. Discovering an optimum range of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Kulling, 895 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ 2d 1056. Without the showing of some unexpected result. Since applicant has not shown some unexpected result the inclusion of this limitation is considered to be a matter of choice in design. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the coating with at least 1 to 2 micrometer, with reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice. See evidence reference of US20150197295. Evidence by assignees own patent or publication (US20150197295, paragraph 0020 “The total thickness of the underlayer and the a-DLC outer layer is preferably within a range from approximately 2.0-20 micrometer. Since the thickness of this coating is negligible, there is no need to change existing clearance designs for the pin and bushing. As a result, existing undercarriage track joint assemblies may be retrofitted to include track pins that include the above-disclosed features.” Also see claims and paragraph 0019). The reference of US20150197295 teaches tetrahedral amorphous carbon, see claims.
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke Champlin and further in view of Examiners official notice.
Franke discloses the invention as claimed above in paragraph 007 but fails to disclose the process of physical vapor deposition. Examiner provides official notice that to have a coating placed on a member by physical vapor deposition is well known and old. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the coating placed on the wear sleeve by the method of physical vapor deposition with reasonable expectation of success, to provide good adhesion and provide coating that is cost effective (e.g. evidence reference 9970526 teaches many method to provide diamond like carbon coating, see form 892).
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 VISHAL A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-7060. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am to 4:00pm.
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, Christine Mills can be reached on 571-272-8322. 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.
/VISHAL A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights