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 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument that amendment to claims are provided to expediting allowance is not persuasive, since the limitation added have already rejected before (the limitation “metal-doped diamond like carbon coating”). See 103 rejections provided in Final Office Action mailed on 8/28/2025. With regard to the limitation at least partially diffused into the outer diameter surface is not persuasive since the outer surface is made of metal and any metal coating placed on the metal will partially diffuse as much as applicants. It is also noted that partially diffused into the outer diameter surface is not provided in the original disclosure.
Applicants’ argument with regard to Diez not teaching “the wear sleeve…static seal” is not persuasive in view of what is stated in the rejection below (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).).
Applicants’ argument that Diez not teaching (“a seal element…a static seal”) is not persuasive since Diez provides sealing element 11 that contacts the wear sleeve (also see rejection below).
Applicants’ argument that amendment to claims are provided to expediting allowance is not persuasive, Franke teaches each and every claim of the amended claims, see rejection below.
Applicants’ argument that Franke does not teach a coating disposed on the outer surface, the coating comprising diamond like carbon is not persuasive in view of what is shown in figure 5 and description of figure 5. The seal elements 44 contact the wear sleeve shown in figure 5 and also see the rejection below. It is further noted that applicant has shown figure 1 which shows coating directly on shaft which is not used in the rejections.
The reference of Franke teaches 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).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 7-9, 11-16 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15, “at least partially diffused into the outer diameter surface” or “at least partially reacts with the outer surface”, unclear where this is stated in the original disclosure? Claims are rejected as best understood.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-16 and 18-24 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have the limitation , “at least partially diffused into the outer diameter surface” or “at least partially reacts with the outer surface”, unclear what this means? For examination purpose examiner has provided many rejections that use same or similar process as applicants for applying coating to a metallic or metal shaft and/or sleeve.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11-12, 15-17, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franke (US. 20140117627).
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).
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.
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).
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, 4-5, 7-9, 11-16 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz.
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). 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).
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 0020) and 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.
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 and 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
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