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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-8 are pending, claim 1 is independent.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is indefinite how a diffusion layer is formed on a surface and the triiron tetraoxide film is formed on the same surface (same because surface is introduced with “the”). It is indefinite if the diffusion layer is under the triiron tetraoxide film (in which case it is not on “the surface”), or the opposite order, or if they are on different portions of the “surface” (i.e. not three consecutive layers), or an alternative arrangement. For purposes of examination, any configuration of the three parts shall be considered to meet the limitations.
Regarding claims 2-8, these claims are rejected for their respective incorporations of the above due to their dependencies on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (JP 2006/161887 A Google Patents machine translation March 13, 2026 and original for figures), hereinafter Fujita, in view of Mori (JP 2008/138705 A Google Patents machine translation March 13, 2026), hereinafter Mori, as evidenced by JVN Bearings (“Bearing Steel Grades and usage: Understanding the Basics”) (copies provided herewith).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Fujita teaches a needle roller bearing with a shaft (53) disposed between a raceway surface on the outer peripheral surface of the shaft and the shaft inner member so as to be freely rollable (Pg. 2 [20]), the plurality of needle rollers roll on the raceway surface (Pg. 2 [19]), used in a transmission (“transmission shaft”; Pg. 1 [3]), the shaft is made of JIS steel tyle SUJ2 and is carburized or carbonitrided (Pg. 3 [4]), carburizing can occur to the steel in an atmosphere of Rx and enriched gas for about 3-5 hours at 820-850⁰C (Pg. 3 [3]). One of ordinary skill in the art reasonably understands that by carburizing steel in this manner a diffusion layer including crystal grains of iron carbide are formed on a surface of the steel. JVN Bearings provides evidence that JIS SUJ2 steel includes Cr and Mo (Pg. 4 Table); i.e. is a chromium-molybdenum steel).
Fujita does not specifically teach a triiron tetraoxide film formed on a surface of the base material. Mori is in the similar field of endeavor of increasing the life of bearings (Pg. 15 [10]) and teaches an oxide film is formed on the rolling surface and is triiron tetraoxide (Pg. 3 [7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fujita to incorporate the particular oxide film of Mori. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the life of the bearing (Pg. 2 [7]), which is a desired characteristic in the bearing of Fujita (Abstract).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding claim 2, Fujita in view of Mori, as evidenced by JVN Bearings teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. Fujita does not teach the triiron tetraoxide film has a thickness of 1-2 microns.
Mori is in the similar field of endeavor of increasing the life of bearings (Pg. 15 [10]) and teaches triiron tetroxide film on the surface of the bearing member is a 0.1 microns or more (Pg. 3 [7]-[8]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fujita to incorporate the particular oxide film of Mori. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the life of the bearing (Pg. 2 [7]) by ensuring sufficient peel resistance (Pg. 3 [8]), which is a desired characteristic in the bearing of Fujita (Abstract).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding claim 8, Fujita in view of Mori, as evidenced by JVN Bearings teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. Fujita further teaches a needle roller bearing with a shaft (53) disposed between the raceway surface on the outer peripheral surface of the shaft and the shaft inner member so as to be freely rollable (Pg. 2 [20]), the plurality of needle rollers roll on the raceway surface (Pg. 2 [19]; “bearing device”), used in a transmission (“transmission shaft”; Pg. 1 [3]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Mori, as evidenced by JVN Bearings and King-BlogFrost (“Astm Grain Size Number and Grain Size Diameter”) (copy provided herewith).
Regarding claim 4, Fujita in view of Mori, as evidenced by JVN Bearings teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. Fujita does not teach an average grain size of prior austenite crystal grains in the surface of the base material is ≤ 8 microns.
Mori is in the similar field of endeavor of increasing the life of bearings (Pg. 15 [10]) and teaches exceeding No 10 in the grading number of austenitic crystal grain in the surface portion of the bearing member, and this is residual austenite (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fujita to incorporate the residual austenite grain size of Mori. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the life of the bearing (Pg. 2 [8]), which is a desired characteristic in the bearing of Fujita (Abstract). King-BlogFrost provides evidence that exceeding 10 is less than 11 microns (Pg. 11 first table).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Mori, further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2020/0378442 A1), hereinafter Yamada, as evidenced by JVN Bearings.
Regarding claims 5-7, Fujita in view of Mori, as evidenced by JVN Bearings teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. Fujita does not teach a proportion of an area of compound grains including the crystal grains of at least one of the iron carbide, iron nitride, or iron carbonitride in the diffusion layer is greater than or equal to 3% and an average grain size of the compound grains is ≤0.3 micron, nor the diffusion layer includes a plurality of martensite blocks wherein the largest grain size of the martensite blocks is ≤3.8 microns.
Yamada is in the similar field of endeavor of bearing part composed of a chromium molybdenum steel, the bearing part including a diffusion layer in a surface of the bearing part ([0015]) and teaches the diffusion layer includes a plurality of compound grains and a plurality of martensite blocks, an average grain size of the compound grains is less than or equal to 0.3 μm, an area ratio of the compound grains in the diffusion layer is more than or equal to 3%, and maximum grain size of the plurality of martensite blocks is less than or equal to 3.8 μm ([0015]). Further, each of the compound grains is a crystal grain of an iron (Fe) carbide, an iron nitride, or an iron carbonitride, more specifically, the compound grain is a crystal grain of a compound in which chromium substitutes for part of an iron site of cementite (Fe3C) and nitrogen (N) substitutes for part of a carbon (C) site thereof (i.e., a compound represented by (Fe,Cr)3(C,N)) ([0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fujita to incorporate the above details of Yamada. The motivation for doing so would have been to wear resistance of the bearing part ([0026]; [0109]; [0110]) which is a desired characteristic in the bearing of Fujita (Pg. 2 [9]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tamada et al. (US 5150974 A) teaches a bearing formed on rolling surfaces of bearings with oxide layers of 0.1-2.5 microns (Abstract), oxide layers formed by blackening treatment (Col. 3 Lns. 40-41).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
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.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784