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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 6, “the sliding” should be changed to --the sliding layer-- for clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 8-9, 11, 14-15, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou (US 20220381291 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses (in fig. 1) a plain bearing ring (1) comprising:
a metallic base material (2 and para. [0027] discloses the base material is made out of steel, which is the same material as the instant application);
and a sliding layer (coating on 5 and claim 2 discloses the sliding layer can be a metal that contains copper (Cu) laser-clad onto the base material (2, para. [0049] discloses the Cu based layer, which can be made out of Cu, Ni, and Sn, is applied by laser cladding, and it is the same material combination as the instant application),
wherein the base material (2) has a higher elastic limit than a material of the sliding layer (coating on 5 and the steel base material has a higher elastic limit than the sliding layer material).
While Zhou does not state the base material has a higher elastic limit than a material of the sliding layer, Zhou discloses the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou discloses the plain bearing ring according to claim 1, wherein the material of the sliding layer is a friction-reducing material, a corrosion protection material and/or a wear protection material (para. [0049] discloses the Cu based layer, which can be made out of Cu, Ni, and Sn, is applied by laser cladding, and it is the same material combination, so the sliding material combination would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation, see MPEP 2112 (I)-(III)).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou discloses the plain bearing ring according to claim 1, wherein an entire surface (5) of the plain bearing ring (1) is covered by the sliding layer (coating on 5).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou discloses (in fig. 1) a plain bearing comprising:
a plain bearing first ring (2) having a sliding surface (5),
and a plain bearing second ring (3) having a sliding surface (6) configured to slide against the sliding surface of the plain bearing first ring (2),
wherein the plain bearing first ring (2) comprises a metallic base material (2 and para. [0027] discloses the base material is made out of steel, which is the same material as the instant application) and a laser-clad sliding layer (coating on 5) on the base material (2 and para. [0049] discloses the Cu based layer on 5, which can be made out of Cu, Ni, and Sn, is applied by laser cladding, and it is the same material combination as the instant application)
the sliding forming the sliding surface (5) of the plain bearing first ring (2),
and wherein the base material has a higher elastic limit than a material of the sliding layer (coating on 5 and the steel base material has a higher elastic limit than the sliding layer material).
While Zhou does not state the base material has a higher elastic limit than a material of the sliding layer, Zhou discloses the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou discloses (in fig. 1) a method of forming a first plain bearing ring (2) comprising:
providing a metal ring (2) formed from a base material (2 and para. [0027] discloses the base material is made out of steel, which is the same material as the instant application);
and laser-cladding a sliding layer (coating on 5) onto the base material (2 and para. [0049] discloses the Cu based layer on 5, which can be made out of Cu, Ni, and Sn, is applied by laser cladding, and it is the same material combination as the instant application),
wherein the base material has a higher elastic limit than a material of the sliding layer (coating on 5 and the steel base material has a higher elastic limit than the sliding layer material).
While Zhou does not state the base material has a higher elastic limit than a material of the sliding layer, Zhou discloses the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 14, Zhou discloses (in fig. 1) a method of forming a plain bearing (1) comprising: providing a first plain bearing ring (2) according to claim 11, and mounting a second plain bearing ring (3) to the first plain bearing ring (2) to form the plain bearing (1), wherein the sliding layer (coating on 5) forms a sliding surface (5) of the first plain bearing ring (2).
Regarding claim 15, Zhou teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the laser-cladding comprises melting a portion of the base material and melting a material of the sliding layer (this claim is just defining what laser-cladding is and the prior art uses the same process as the instant application so it would also comprises melting a portion of the base material and melting a material of the sliding layer).
Regarding claim 20, Zhou teaches a first plain bearing ring (2) formed by the method according to claim 15.
Regarding claim 21, Zhou teaches (in fig. 1) a first plain bearing (1) comprising: a first plain bearing ring (2) according to claim 20, and a second plain bearing ring (3) having a sliding surface (6) configured to slide against the sliding layer (5) of the first plain bearing first ring (2).
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 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20220381291 A1) in view of Hodes et al. (US 5137792 A).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou discloses the plain bearing ring according to claim 1 but does not disclose the sliding layer includes friction-reducing and/or wear-reducing fillers.
Hodes teaches the sliding layer includes friction-reducing and/or wear-reducing fillers (col. 4, lines 8-23 teaches the same fillers as in the instant application for friction-reducing and/or wear-reducing fillers, molybdenum disulfide, PTFE, or PEEK, the same material would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation, see MPEP 2112 (I)-(III)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the sliding layer of Zhou and include previously known friction-reducing and/or wear-reducing fillers, for example, molybdenum disulfide, PTFE, or PEEK, as taught by Hodes for the purpose increasing the service life of the component, 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.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou discloses the plain bearing ring according to claim 1 but does not disclose the sliding layer comprises bronze.
Hodes teaches the sliding layer comprises bronze (col. 4, lines 45-55 teaches the sliding layer can be lead bronze).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the sliding layer of Zhou with any previously known sliding layer used in bearings, including lead bronze, as taught by Hodes, for the purpose of having a sliding layer with excellent sliding properties (col. 4, lines 45-55). It has also 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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20220381291 A1) in view of Sherif et al. (US 20180073113 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou discloses the plain bearing ring according to claim 1, wherein the base material is steel but does not disclose it is boron-alloyed steel.
Sherif teaches the steel can be a boron-alloyed steel (para. [0057] teaches boron is added to steel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to have the steel of Zhou be a boron-alloyed steel, as taught by Sherif, for the purpose of having a steel with increased hardenability (para. [0057]). It has also 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.
Regarding claim 5, Zhou in view of Sherif teaches the plain bearing ring according to claim 4, wherein the base material has a carbon content of less than 0.37 mass% (Sherif abstract teaches the steel alloy has 0.04 to 0.1 wt. % carbon, which is less than 0.37 mass%).
Claims 10, 12-13, and 16-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20220381291 A1) in view of Sherif et al. (US 20180073113 A1) and in further view of Hodes et al. (US 5137792 A).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou discloses the plain bearing according to claim 9 but does not disclose wherein the base material is boron-alloyed steel having a carbon content of less than 0.37 mass%.
Sherif teaches the steel can be a boron-alloyed steel (para. [0057] teaches boron is added to steel) having a carbon content of less than 0.37 mass% (abstract teaches the steel alloy has 0.04 to 0.1 wt. % carbon, which is less than 0.37 mass%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to have the steel of Zhou be a boron-alloyed steel having a carbon content of less than 0.37 mass%, as taught by Sherif, for the purpose of having a steel with increased hardenability (para. [0057]). It has also 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.
Zhou in view of Sherif does not teach the sliding layer comprises bronze, and wherein a thickness of the sliding layer is less than or equal to 10 mm.
Hodes teaches (in fig. 1) the sliding layer comprises bronze (col. 4, lines 45-55 teaches the sliding layer can be lead bronze), and wherein a thickness of the sliding layer is less than or equal to 10 mm (claim 2 teaches the thickness is 20 μm, which is less than 10 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the sliding layer of Zhou in view of Sherif with any previously known sliding layer used in bearings, including lead bronze, as taught by Hodes, for the purpose of having a sliding layer with excellent sliding properties (col. 4, lines 45-55). It has also 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. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the sliding layer be less than or equal to 10 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Zhou discloses the method according to claim 11 but does not disclose the base material is boron-alloyed steel.
Sherif teaches the steel can be a boron-alloyed steel (para. [0057] teaches boron is added to steel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to have the steel of Zhou be a boron-alloyed steel, as taught by Sherif, for the purpose of having a steel with increased hardenability (para. [0057]). It has also 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.
Zhou in view of Sherif does not teach the sliding layer comprises bronze.
Hodes teaches (in fig. 1) the sliding layer comprises bronze (col. 4, lines 45-55 teaches the sliding layer can be lead bronze).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the sliding layer of Zhou in view of Sherif with any previously known sliding layer used in bearings, including lead bronze, as taught by Hodes, for the purpose of having a sliding layer with excellent sliding properties (col. 4, lines 45-55). It has also 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.
Regarding claim 13, Zhou in view of Sherif and in further view of Hodes teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the base material has a carbon content of less than 0.37 mass% (Sherif abstract teaches the steel alloy has 0.04 to 0.1 wt. % carbon, which is less than 0.37 mass%), and wherein a thickness of the sliding layer is less than or equal to 10 mm (Hodes claim 2 teaches the thickness is 20 μm, which is less than 10 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the sliding layer be less than or equal to 10 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16, Zhou discloses the method according to claim 15 but does not disclose the base material is boron-alloyed steel.
Sherif teaches the steel can be a boron-alloyed steel (para. [0057] teaches boron is added to steel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to have the steel of Zhou be a boron-alloyed steel, as taught by Sherif, for the purpose of having a steel with increased hardenability (para. [0057]). It has also 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.
Zhou in view of Sherif does not teach the sliding layer comprises bronze.
Hodes teaches (in fig. 1) the sliding layer comprises bronze (col. 4, lines 45-55 teaches the sliding layer can be lead bronze).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the sliding layer of Zhou in view of Sherif with any previously known sliding layer used in bearings, including lead bronze, as taught by Hodes, for the purpose of having a sliding layer with excellent sliding properties (col. 4, lines 45-55). It has also 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.
Regarding claim 17, Zhou in view of Sherif and in further view of Hodes teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein the base material has a carbon content of less than 0.37 mass% (Sherif abstract teaches the steel alloy has 0.04 to 0.1 wt. % carbon, which is less than 0.37 mass%), and wherein a thickness of the sliding layer is less than or equal to 10 mm (Hodes claim 2 teaches the thickness is 20 μm, which is less than 10 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the sliding layer be less than or equal to 10 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 18, Zhou in view of Sherif and in further view of Hodes teaches a first plain bearing ring (2) formed by the method according to claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Zhou in view of Sherif and in further view of Hodes teaches (in Zhou fig. 1) a first plain bearing (1) comprising: a first plain bearing ring (2) according to claim 18, and a second plain bearing ring (3) having a sliding surface (6) configured to slide against the sliding layer (5) of the first plain bearing first ring (2).
Alternative Rejection #1
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 11, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (US 20080206087 A1) in view of Hodes et al. (US 5137792 A).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita discloses (in abstract and fig. 1D) a plain bearing ring (abstract) comprising:
a metallic base material (5 and para. [0028] discloses the base material is made out of steel, which is the same material as the instant application);
and a sliding layer (1 and claims 1 and 2 discloses the sliding comprises aluminum alloy) laser-clad (para. [0018] discloses the laser-cladding process) onto the base material (5), wherein the base material (5) has a higher elastic limit than a material of the sliding layer (1).
If argued that Fujita does not disclose the base material that has a higher elastic limit than a material of the sliding layer.
Hodes teaches (in fig. 2) the sliding layer (22) comprises bronze (col. 4, lines 45-55 teaches the sliding layer can be lead bronze), which is the same material as the sliding layer of the instant application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the sliding layer of Fujita with any previously known sliding layer used in bearings, including lead bronze, as taught by Hodes, for the purpose of having a sliding layer with excellent sliding properties (col. 4, lines 45-55). It has also 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.
While Fujita in view of Hodes does not state the base material has a higher elastic limit than a material of the sliding layer, Fujita in view of Hodes teaches the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 2, Fujita in view of Hodes teaches the plain bearing ring according to claim 1, wherein the material of the sliding layer is a friction-reducing material, a corrosion protection material and/or a wear protection material (Hodes teaches the same material, bronze, for the sliding layer as the instant application, so the sliding material would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation, see MPEP 2112 (I)-(III)).
Regarding claim 3, Fujita in view of Hodes teaches the plain bearing ring according to claim 1, wherein the sliding layer includes friction-reducing and/or wear-reducing fillers (Hodes col. 4, lines 8-23 teaches the sliding layer with the same fillers as the instant application for friction-reducing and/or wear-reducing fillers, molybdenum disulfide, PTFE, or PEEK, so the same material would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation, see MPEP 2112 (I)-(III)).
Regarding claim 6, Fujita in view of Hodes teaches the plain bearing ring according to claim 1, wherein the sliding layer comprises bronze (Hodes col. 4, lines 45-55 teaches the sliding layer can be lead bronze).
Regarding claim 11, Fujita teaches (in abstract and fig. 1D) a method of forming a first plain bearing ring (abstract, a part of plain bearing, not shown) comprising: providing a metal ring (5) formed from a base material (5 and para. [0028] discloses the base material is made out of steel, which is the same material as the instant application); and laser-cladding (para. [0018] discloses the laser-cladding process) a sliding layer (1 and claims 1 and 2 discloses the sliding comprises aluminum alloy) onto the base material (5), wherein the base material (5) has a higher elastic limit than a material of the sliding layer (1).
If argued that Fujita does not disclose the base material that has a higher elastic limit than a material of the sliding layer.
Hodes teaches (in fig. 2) the sliding layer (22) comprises bronze (col. 4, lines 45-55 teaches the sliding layer can be lead bronze), which is the same material as the sliding layer of the instant application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the sliding layer of Fujita with any previously known sliding layer used in bearings, including lead bronze, as taught by Hodes, for the purpose of having a sliding layer with excellent sliding properties (col. 4, lines 45-55). It has also 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.
While Fujita in view of Hodes does not state the base material has a higher elastic limit than a material of the sliding layer, Fujita in view of Hodes teaches the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 15, Fujita in view of Hodes teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the laser-cladding comprises melting a portion of the base material and melting a material of the sliding layer (this claim is just defining what laser-cladding is and the prior art uses the same process as the instant application so it would also comprises melting a portion of the base material and melting a material of the sliding layer).
Regarding claim 20, Fujita in view of Hodes teaches a first plain bearing ring formed by the method according to claim 15.
Claim(s) 8-9, 14, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (US 20080206087 A1) in view of Hodes et al. (US 5137792 A) and in further view of Gabrielson (US 4123122 A).
Regarding claim 8, Fujita in view of Hodes teaches the plain bearing ring according to claim 1 but does not teach an entire surface of the plain bearing ring is covered by the sliding layer.
Gabrielson teaches (in fig. 1) an entire surface (inner surface of 12) of the plain bearing ring (Fig. 1) is covered by the sliding layer (14 and 16) for the purpose of eliminating the need for fluid or grease lubrication between the two bearing rings (col. 1, lines 56-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an entire surface of the plain bearing ring is covered by the sliding layer, as taught by Gabrielson, in the plain bearing of Fujita in view of Hodes, for the purpose of eliminating the need for fluid or grease lubrication between the two bearing rings (col. 1, lines 56-57).
Regarding claim 9, Fujita discloses (in abstract and fig. 1D) a plain bearing ring (abstract) comprising:
a metallic base material (5 and para. [0028] discloses the base material is made out of steel, which is the same material as the instant application);
and a laser-clad sliding layer (1 and claims 1 and 2 discloses the sliding comprises aluminum alloy and para. [0018] discloses the laser-cladding process) onto the base material (5), wherein the base material (5) has a higher elastic limit than a material of the sliding layer (1).
If argued that Fujita does not disclose the base material that has a higher elastic limit than a material of the sliding layer.
Hodes teaches (in fig. 2) the sliding layer (22) comprises bronze (col. 4, lines 45-55 teaches the sliding layer can be lead bronze), which is the same material as the sliding layer of the instant application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the sliding layer of Fujita with any previously known sliding layer used in bearings, including lead bronze, as taught by Hodes, for the purpose of having a sliding layer with excellent sliding properties (col. 4, lines 45-55). It has also 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.
While Fujita in view of Hodes does not state the base material has a higher elastic limit than a material of the sliding layer, Fujita in Hodes teaches the same material and material combination as the instant application, so they would exhibit the same properties and thus the reference meets claim recitation. MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Fujita in view of Hodes does not teach the structure of the plain bearing ring comprising: a plain bearing first ring having a sliding surface, and a plain bearing second ring having a sliding surface configured to slide against the sliding surface of the plain bearing first ring, the sliding forming the sliding surface of the plain bearing first ring.
Gabrielson teaches (in fig. 1) a plain bearing (fig. 1) comprising: a plain bearing first ring (12) having a sliding surface (14 and 16), and a plain bearing second ring (10) having a sliding surface (inner surface of 10) configured to slide against the sliding surface (14 and 16) of the plain bearing first ring (12), the sliding (14 and 16) forming the sliding surface (14 and 16) of the plain bearing first ring (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the plain bearing structure of Fujita in view of Hodes with the plain bearing structure as taught by Gabrielson, as it is substituting one known arrangement for another that perform the same function.
Regarding claim 14, Fujita in view of Hodes teaches the method of forming a plain bearing comprising: providing a first plain bearing ring according claim 11, but does not teach mounting a second plain bearing ring to the first plain bearing ring to form the plain bearing, wherein the sliding layer forms a sliding surface of the first plain bearing ring.
Gabrielson teaches (in fig. 1) mounting a second plain bearing ring (10) to the first plain bearing ring (12) to form the plain bearing (fig. 1), wherein the sliding layer (14 and 16) forms a sliding surface (14 and 16) of the first plain bearing ring (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the same method and plain bearing ring structure, as taught by Gabrielson, in the plain bearing of Fujita in view of Hodes as it is substituting one known arrangement for another that perform the same function.
Regarding claim 21, Fujita in view of Hodes teaches a first plain bearing according to claim 20, but does not explicitly teach a second plain bearing ring having a sliding surface configured to slide against the sliding layer of the first plain bearing first ring.
Gabrielson teaches (in fig. 1) a second plain bearing ring (10) having a sliding surface (inner surface of 10) configured to slide against the sliding layer (14 and 16) of the first plain bearing first ring (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plain bearing ring structure, as taught by Gabrielson, in the plain bearing of Fujita in view of Hodes and in further view of Sherif as it is substituting one known arrangement for another that perform the same function.
Claims 4-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (US 20080206087 A1) in view of Hodes et al. (US 5137792 A) and in further view of Gabrielson (US 4123122 A) and in further view of Sherif et al. (US 20180073113 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Fujita in view of Hodes and in further view of Gabrielson teaches the plain bearing ring according to claim 1, wherein the base material is steel but does not teach the steel is boron-alloyed steel.
Sherif teaches the steel can be a boron-alloyed steel (para. [0057] teaches boron is added to steel)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to have the steel of Fujita in view of Hodes and in further view of Gabrielson be a boron-alloyed steel, as taught by Sherif, for the purpose of having a steel with increased hardenability (para. [0057]). It has also 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.
Regarding claim 5, Fujita in view of Hodes and in further view of Gabrielson and in further view of Sherif teaches the plain bearing ring according to claim 4, wherein the base material has a carbon content of less than 0.37 mass% (Sherif abstract teaches the steel alloy has 0.04 to 0.1 wt. % carbon, which is less than 0.37 mass%).
Regarding claim 10, Fujita in view of Hodes and in further view of Gabrielson teaches the plain bearing according to claim 9 wherein the sliding layer comprises bronze (Hodes col. 4, lines 45-55 teaches the sliding layer can be lead bronze), and wherein a thickness of the sliding layer is less than or equal to 10 mm (Hodes claim 2 teaches the thickness is 20 μm, which is less than 10 mm) but does not teach wherein the base material is boron-alloyed steel having a carbon content of less than 0.37 mass%.
Sherif teaches the steel can be a boron-alloyed steel (para. [0057] teaches boron is added to steel) having a carbon content of less than 0.37 mass% (abstract teaches the steel alloy has 0.04 to 0.1 wt. % carbon, which is less than 0.37 mass%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to have the steel of Fujita in view of Hodes and in further view of Gabrielson be a boron-alloyed steel having a carbon content of less than 0.37 mass%, as taught by Sherif, for the purpose of having a steel with increased hardenability (para. [0057]). It has also 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.
Claims 12-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (US 20080206087 A1) in view of Hodes et al. (US 5137792 A) and in further view of Sherif et al. (US 20180073113 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Fujita in view of Hodes teaches the method according to claim 11 wherein the sliding layer comprises bronze (Hodes col. 4, lines 45-55 teaches the sliding layer can be lead bronze) but does not teach the base material is boron-alloyed steel.
Sherif teaches the steel can be a boron-alloyed steel (para. [0057] teaches boron is added to steel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to have the steel of Fujita in view of Hodes be a boron-alloyed steel, as taught by Sherif, for the purpose of having a steel with increased hardenability (para. [0057]). It has also 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.
Regarding claim 13, Fujita in view of Hodes and in further view of Sherif teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the base material has a carbon content of less than 0.37 mass% (Sherif abstract teaches the steel alloy has 0.04 to 0.1 wt. % carbon, which is less than 0.37 mass%), and wherein a thickness of the sliding layer is less than or equal to 10 mm (Hodes claim 2 teaches the thickness is 20 μm, which is less than 10 mm).
Regarding claim 16, Fujita in view of Hodes teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein the sliding layer comprises bronze (Hodes col. 4, lines 45-55 teaches the sliding layer can be lead bronze) but does not teach the base material is boron-alloyed steel.
Sherif teaches the steel can be a boron-alloyed steel (para. [0057] teaches boron is added to steel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to have the steel of Fujita in view of Hodes be a boron-alloyed steel, as taught by Sherif, for the purpose of having a steel with increased hardenability (para. [0057]). It has also 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.
Regarding claim 17, Fujita in view of Hodes and in further view of Sherif teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein the base material has a carbon content of less than 0.37 mass% (Sherif abstract teaches the steel alloy has 0.04 to 0.1 wt. % carbon, which is less than 0.37 mass%), and wherein a thickness of the sliding layer is less than or equal to 10 mm (Hodes claim 2 teaches the thickness is 20 μm, which is less than 10 mm).
Regarding claim 18, Fujita in view of Hodes and in further view of Sherif teaches a first plain bearing ring formed by the method according to claim 17.
Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (US 20080206087 A1) in view of Hodes et al. (US 5137792 A) and in further view of Sherif et al. (US 20180073113 A1) and in further view of Gabrielson (US 4123122 A).
Regarding claim 19, Fujita in view of Hodes and in further view of Sherif teaches a first plain bearing according to claim 18, but does not explicitly teach a second plain bearing ring having a sliding surface configured to slide against the sliding layer of the first plain bearing first ring.
Gabrielson teaches (in fig. 1) a second plain bearing ring (10) having a sliding surface (inner surface of 10) configured to slide against the sliding layer (14 and 16) of the first plain bearing first ring (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plain bearing ring structure, as taught by Gabrielson, in the plain bearing of Fujita in view of Hodes and in further view of Sherif as it is substituting one known arrangement for another that perform the same function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-8, filed 08/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIMEE T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 EST.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/AIMEE TRAN NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617