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 Office Action is in response to the application filed 9/20/2023.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A sliding member formed of a polytetrafluoroethylene resin, wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene resin contains:
2.4 wt.% or more and 15.6 wt.% or less magnesium phosphate
7.6 wt.% or more and 19.9 wt.% or less barium sulfate
0 wt.% or more and 10.0 wt.% or less molybdenum disulfide
8.3 wt.% or more and 15.7 wt.% or less fired clay
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witt et al. (US 2023/0257676).
Regarding claim 1, Witt teaches a sliding member formed of PTFE resin. Specifically, Witt teaches PTFE polymer-based sliding materials and sliding members comprising PTFE compositions (Claim 1; ([0001], [0003], [0016] – [0018]). Witt further teaches magnesium phosphate fillers for tribological sliding materials (Claim 2, [0009]). Witt additionally teaches phosphate filler proportions of 1-30 vol%, preferably 1-20 vol% ([0013]), which substantially overlaps Applicant’s claimed 2.4-15.6 wt.% magnesium phosphate loading when converted between wt.% and vol.% using density. Witt further teaches barium sulfate filler (Claim 8, [0041]). Applicant’s claims 7.6-19.9 wt.% barium sulfate corresponds approximately to 3.9-10.8 vol.% using PTFE density of approximately 2.2 g/cc and BaSO4 density of approximately 4.5 g/cc, which overlaps Witt’s disclosed filler range of 0 -20 vol.%. Witt expressly teaches molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) metal sulfide filler (Claim 3; [0014]). Applicant’s claimed 0-10 wt.% MoS2 converts approximately to 1-4.7 vol.% using PTFE density of approximately 2.2 g/cc and MoS2 density of approximately 5.0 g/cc, overlapping Witt’s disclosed metal sulfide filler range of 2-30 vol.% preferably 5-20 vol.%. Witt teaches ceramic particulate fillers in PTFE sliding materials (Claim 10; ¶ [0023]) thereby reading on the “fired clay” as required by the instant claim. Witt teaches the tertiary fillers / ceramic filler in an amount of from 0 to 10 vol.% [0024] thereby overlapping with the claimed range of from 8.3 – 15.7 vol. %.
Witt and the claims differ in that Witt does not teach the exact same ranges for magnesium phosphate, barium sulfate, molybdenum disulfide, and fired clay as recited in claim 1.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Witt overlap the instantly claimed ranges. Specifically, Witt teaches phosphate filler proportions of 1-30 vol.% and preferably 1-20 vol.% ([0013]), barium sulfate as a secondary filler (Claim 8, [0024]), metal sulfide filler proportions of 2-30 vol. % ([0014]), and tertiary /ceramic filler concentrations of 0-10 vol. % ([0024]). As discussed above, the concentrations and ranges disclosed by Witt overlap the ranges recited in claim 1. Therefore, the overlapping ranges disclosed by Witt establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select portions of the disclosed ranges, including the instantly claimed ranges, from the ranges disclosed in Witt. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2, Witt teaches optional tertiary fillers including ceramic particles and sheet silicates (Claim 10, [0023]) and teaches tertiary filler concentrates of 0-15 vol.% including 0-10 vol.% ([0024]; claim 11]). Because Witt teaches silicates as optional fillers rather than mandatory components, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that omission of an optional silicate filler would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Witt teaches optional tertiary fillers including carbon fibers, glass fibers, polymer fibers, graphite, metal powders, pigments, and hard particles ([0023], Claim 10). Witt further teaches tertiary filler concentration of 0-15 vol.% of the PTFE sliding material ([0025], claim 11). Accordingly, Witt teaches the recited optional reinforcing fillers and teaches filler loadings overlapping the claimed filler amount. Therefore, claim 3 would have been obvious over Witt.
Regarding claim 4, Witt teaches a PTFE polymer-based sliding bearing composite material comprising a metallic support layer, a porous support layer, and a sliding material filling the pores of the support ([0026, Claim 13). With further teaches sliding bearing elements including sliding strips, sliding pads, sliding bearing shells, slide bearing bushes, and slide collar bushes formed from composite material ([0027, Claim 14-15). Accordingly, Witt teaches a sliding member disposed on a base material as claimed. Therefore, claim 4 would have been obvious over Witt. Accordingly, claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witt et.al. (US 2023/0257676 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ROY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0205. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/PATRICK ROY THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights