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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 18 April 2024 and 23 September 2024 were considered by the examiner.
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 1-8 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.
In regards to independent claim 1, this claim utilizes the phrase “as a main component” when referring to the composition of the adhesive layer, intermediate layer, and cover layer in the sixth, eighth, and tenth lines of the claim. The metes and bounds of this particular limitation cannot be determined since it is not clear what would or would not be considered to be a main component within this claim.
In particular, it is not clear how much of the respective elements must be present within the compositions in order for the recited elements to be considered to be “a main component.” For example, it is not clear if this simply means that this element must constitute a majority of the composition, a vast majority of the composition, or merely be the most plentiful element in the composition even though it does not constitute a majority of the composition overall.
Additionally, it is not clear by which method the determination as to whether the element is considered to be “a main component” since differing methods could yield different results. For example, using weight percent to determine which element is “a main component” could yield a different result versus utilizing volume percent or atomic percent.
For the purposes of examination, the Office is interpreting the phrase “a main component” to mean that the element must constitute a majority of the composition as determined by weight percent of the overall composition.
As to dependent claims 2-7, these claims depend from independent claim 1 and incorporate the limitations therein. Accordingly, dependent claims 2-7 are rejected for the reasons set forth above in regards to independent claim 1.
In regards to independent claim 8, this claim utilizes the phrase “as a main component” when referring to the composition of the adhesive layer, intermediate layer, and cover layer in the sixth, eighth, and tenth lines of the claim. The metes and bounds of this particular limitation cannot be determined since it is not clear what would or would not be considered to be a main component within this claim.
In particular, it is not clear how much of the respective elements must be present within the compositions in order for the recited elements to be considered to be “a main component.” For example, it is not clear if this simply means that this element must constitute a majority of the composition, a vast majority of the composition, or merely be the most plentiful element in the composition even though it does not constitute a majority of the composition overall.
Additionally, it is not clear by which method the determination as to whether the element is considered to be “a main component” since differing methods could yield different results. For example, using weight percent to determine which element is “a main component” could yield a different result versus utilizing volume percent or atomic percent.
For the purposes of examination, the Office is interpreting the phrase “a main component” to mean that the element must constitute a majority of the composition as determined by weight percent of the overall composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 2,741,016 (Roach) in view of JP 2013-245767 (Included in IDS submitted on 23 September 2024, cited herein as “JP ‘767”)
In regards to independent claims 1 and 8, Roach is directed to bearings, and more particularly to aluminum and aluminum alloy bearings having a bearing surface of another metal or alloy coextensively bonded thereto. (1:15-18) The primary object is to provide an improved composite type aluminum or aluminum alloy bearing having a wear layer or bearing surface of another metal, preferably of a bearing metal such as a lead-base alloy. (1:19-23)
Figure 1, reproduced below, is a schematic perspective of a cylindrical bearing. (2:43-44) As shown by this figure, the bearing, viz. sliding member, has a semi-annular shape.
PNG
media_image1.png
551
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The bearing includes a strong backing member (10) of steel or the like to which is bonded a layer (12) of aluminum or aluminum alloy. (2:47-49) A layer (16) of silver is bonded to the aluminum or aluminum alloy through a thin zinc coating (14) formed by applying a solution of sodium zincate over the aluminum containing layer (12). (2:50-53) An outer coating (18) of a bearing metal is deposited on the resultant structure to provide a corrosion resistant wear surface (20). (2:53-55) This outer coating is a bearing metal selected from the group consisting of lead-tin; lead-tin-silver, lead-tin-copper; lead-indium; or other conventional bearing materials selected based upon the specific use of the bearing. (1:33-45) in particular, the bearing metal is a lead-base alloy. (2:5-8)
Figure 2, reproduced below, shows a sectional view that illustrates the structure of the bearing. (2:45-46)
PNG
media_image2.png
308
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In this structure, the backing member (10) corresponds to the claimed back metal layer. The layer (12) of aluminum corresponds to the claimed lining layer. The thin zinc coating (14) corresponds to the claimed adhesive layer. The layer (16) of silver corresponds to the claimed intermediate layer. The outer coating (18) corresponds to the claimed cover layer.
This reference sets forth the respective layers of the sliding member, however this reference does not explicitly set forth the layers extending to cover the axial end face of the metal member or circumferential surface of the metal member.
In the same field of endeavor of slide bearings, JP ‘767 is directed to a slide bearing in which an overlay layer is formed on the inner surface of a lining layer. (¶1) In recent years, demands for higher output and smaller size and lighter weight are made to engines and, as a result, the sliding bearing is subjected to an even greater surface pressure due to the higher output of the engine. (¶6) In addition, due to the reduction in rigidity of the crankshaft and the like due to the reduction in size and weight of the engine, the axial bearing end of the slide bearing is likely to be hit at one end. (¶6) This can lead to peeling off of layers. (¶6) JP ‘767 seeks to prevent the exfoliation of the layers in order to prevent early seizure and improve limit performance. (¶7)
The lining is provided on the axial center portion and the bearing end portion at the bearing axial direction end portion. (¶27) Since this lining covers the entirety of the end portion it would constitute a surface area of 30% or more and 70% or more. Additionally, by extending beyond the end portion it would likewise cover the outer circumferential surface and prevents the peeling.
PNG
media_image3.png
256
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have extended the lining material layers (including the adhesive layer, intermediate layer, and cover layer) around the end portion (viz. the axial end faces) and outer circumferential surface, as taught by JP ‘767 within the bearing material of Roach. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire and expectation of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, including providing for a coating that is resistant to peeling or delamination as a result of the conditions to which the bearing would be subjected to during its normal operations. This would prevent early seizures and improve the performance of the slide bearing. Since the linings, viz . the layers, would cover the end portion and outer circumferential surface in order to prevent peeling and therefore increase the lifespan of the bearing product the surface area ratios would fall within the claimed ranges for both the axial end face and the inner/outer circumferential faces.
As to claim 2-6, as set forth above, it is known to extend the layers beyond the end portion. Accordingly, by extending the layers of the structure the layers likewise are provided with resistance to peeling and thereby improve the performance life of the resulting bearing.
As to claim 7, JP ‘767 sets forth decreasing the thickness of the layer toward the bearing end. (¶8) This would result in the layers on the axial end face having a smaller thickness than those covering the inner circumferential surface of the metal member.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Schleis whose telephone number is (571)270-5636. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
Daniel J. Schleis
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/Daniel J. Schleis/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784