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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-12 in the reply filed on July 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 27, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0036], “the are between” (third line of paragraph [0036]) should be “the arc between” (see for example the fifth line of paragraph [0036]).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
The term “finely dispersed” in claim 1 line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “finely dispersed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As the word “fine” in the context of powder metallurgy typically refers to particle or grain sizes and not to a degree of dispersion, and the specification does not indicate some metric to evaluate whether or not a dispersion is considered “fine”, it is not clear what is or is not a particle phase “finely dispersed” in the matrix phase. If “finely dispersed” is intended to limit the size of the particles, the particle diameter limitations on the last line of claim 1 would suffice without the need for the phrase “finely dispersed”.
Claim 1 claims “when an arbitrary observation cross section is set in the sliding layer, and a plurality of observation regions having sizes of 500 µm x 500 µm or more are extracted from the observation cross section, area rates Sv of the particle phases in the plurality of observation regions are 0.2% Sv < 5% in all of the observation regions”. In defining the structure of the claimed sliding member by reference to an arbitrary cross section, claim 1 recites a limitation which depends on a variable, such that whether or not claim 1 encompasses a given slide member depends on which arbitrary observation cross section is set from a potentially infinite number of cross sections of a given sliding member. As one observation cross section will have a different proportion of phases from some other observation cross section within a given sliding member, the same sliding member could both meet and fail to meet all limitations of claim 1 depending on which arbitrary observation cross section is selected; therefore, what is or is not encompassed by the sliding member claimed in claim 1 cannot be determined. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II) for a further discussion and examples of when and how defining an invention by a variable could raise uncertainty arising to indefiniteness as to what a claim encompasses.
Similarly, the number of observation regions is an unknown variable which renders claim 1 uncertain because whether or not a sliding member meets claim 1 depends on whether or not an observer detected an observation region which has an area rate Sv of 0.2% Sv < 5% in a plurality of observation regions. Claim 1 recites a plurality of observation regions, and a plurality could be as low as 2 with no upper limit. As the number of observed regions within the plurality increases, the more likely at least one of those pluralities statistically will have an area rate which fails to meet 0.2% Sv < 5%. As whether or not a sliding member meets claim 1 depends on an unspecified number of differing observations, the sliding members which are encompassed or excluded by the area rate limitation cannot be determined.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because they depend on claim 1.
Both claims 11 and 12 recite roughness (Ra) without reciting a unit of measurement. Average roughness (Ra) measures the average amplitude deviation, which has units of length. The specification does not indicate the unit of length for the disclosed roughness. As an average roughness Ra of 0.6 µm is very different from an average roughness Ra of 0.6 microinches, it cannot be determined what structure claims 11 and 12 encompass in view of the specification.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nissan Motor (JPS6112844A). Nissan Motor is cited in the IDS filed April 3, 2024. References to Nissan Motor are directed to the examiner-supplied English language translation, which accompanied prior office action(s).
Regarding claim 1, Nissan Motor discloses a sliding member (bearing base bonded to steel plate sentence extending from page 5 to page 6 of description translation, page 7 lines 8-12 of description translation, page 14 lines 19-20 of description translation, claim 1). Nissan Motor discloses that the member comprises a base material (steel plate) and a sliding layer (bearing base/extruded body of bearing material bonded to the steel plate) that is laminated on the base material (sentence extending from page 5 to page 6 of the description translation, manufacturing example 1 starting page 10 of the description translation, manufacturing example 2 starting page 11 of the description translation). Nissan Motor discloses that the sliding layer has a matrix (Al matrix) and particle phases uniformly and finely dispersed in the matrix (Pb, Sn, In, Sb, and Bi as lubricating component) (claim 1, page 5 lines 2-5, page 6 lines 2-20 of the description translation). Nissan Motor discloses that the particle phase has an area ratio of 0.6-4.0% (0.006 to 0.040) in the sliding layer (claim 1, page 6 lines 8-19 of the description translation, page 7 lines 1-5 of the description translation). As Nissan Motor discloses that the particle phase distribution is uniform (page 6 line 2 to page 7 line 8 of the description translation), the area fraction of the lubricating particles would be some value in the range of 0.6-4.0% in at least two
500 µm
×
500 µm
regions in at least one arbitrary cross-section in the sliding layer. 0.6-4.0% lies entirely within a range of 0.2 to 5%. Nissan Motor discloses a particle diameter of the lubricating particles of 8 μm or less (claim 1, page 5, page 14 lines 14-15 of the description translation), which lies entirely within a particle diameter range of 0 µm < Da
≤
30 µm.
Regarding claim 2, Nissan Motor discloses Al as a primary constituent component of the matrix (claim 1, page 5 lines 2-5, page 6 lines 2-20 of the description translation ).
Regarding claim 3, Nissan Motor discloses that the particle phases further include a hardening phase (Si as hardening component, claim 1, page 6 lines 2-20 of the description translation). As Nissan Motor discloses that addition of the particles performs the function of hardening (page 5 lines 11-14, page 7 lines 1-8 of the description translation), Nissan Motor discloses that the hard particles are a high-hardness phase, wherein a high-hardness phase is a phase having higher hardness than the matrix.
Regarding claim 5, Nisan Motor discloses that the high-hardness phase is Si (claim 1, page 5 lines 11-14, page 6 line 2 to page 7 line 8 of the description translation).
Regarding claim 7, Nissan Motor discloses that the particle phases are low-hardness (soft) materials (last 4 lines of page 3, page 11 lines 7-10 of the description translation), and Nissan Motor discloses the effects of the lubricating particles in relation to the matrix material (last 4 lines of page 3). Nissan Motor, therefore discloses that the particles include a low-hardness phase having lower hardness than the matrix.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissan Motor (JPS6112844A), as applied to claims 1 and 3 above.
Regarding claim 6, Nissan Motor discloses that the lubricating particle phase is uniformly dispersed in the sliding layer (claim 1, page 5, page 6 lines 2-20 of the description translation). Nissan Motor discloses dispersing the hardening particles, and scaling the hardening particles in proportion to the amount of lubricating particles (page 7 lines 1-8 of the description translation). In order to proportion the hardening particles to the uniformly dispersed lubricating particles disclosed by Nissan Motor, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to uniformly disperse the hardening particles which Nissan Motor disclose as dispersed (page 7 lines 1-8 of the description translation). Nissan Motor discloses that the hard particles have a cross-sectional area ratio of 0.3-6.0% (0.003 to 0.060) (claim 1, page 7 lines 1-5 of the description translation). A component which has an area fraction of 0.3-6.0% when uniformly dispersed would be expected to have a proportion of 0.3-6.0% of the volume over which the phase is dispersed. A proportion of 0.3-6.0% of a volume overlaps a volume percentage (W) of 0.1 vol %≤W≤5.0 vol %. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruenthaler (DE19622166A1). References to Gruenthaler are directed to the examiner-supplied English language translation.
Regarding claim 1, Gruenthaler discloses a sliding member (sliding element) (claim 1, [0001]). Gruenthaler discloses that the sliding element comprises a base material (support body) and a sliding layer (running layer) that is laminated on the base material (claim 1, Fig. 1b, [0001], [0030]). Gruenthaler discloses that the sliding layer (running layer) has a matrix and particle phases (hard particles) uniformly (completely homogeneous) and finely (diameter < 2 µm) dispersed in the matrix (claim 1, [0009], [0012-13], [0030]). Gruenthaler discloses that the hard particles are dispersed in 2 to 20 percent by volume in the matrix material (claim 1, [0009]). Considering Gruenthaler discloses that the hard particles are completely homogeneously distributed [0009], [0012-13], [0030] and that the proportion of the particle phases is 2-20% over the volume of the sliding layer (claim 1, [0009]), at least one arbitrary observation cross section in the sliding layer (running layer) would have at least two observation regions having sizes of 500 μm×500 μm or more, among all physically possible choices for observation regions in all possible cross-sections, wherein the area rate of the hard particles is in a range of 2-20%. A range of 2-20% overlaps the claimed area ratio of 0.2-5%. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Gruenthaler discloses that the particles have a particle size < 2µm [0009], which meets a maximum particle diameter Da of the particle phases is 0 μm<Da≤30 μm.
Regarding claim 2, Gruenthaler discloses Sn, SnCu, and CuSn among options for the matrix material (claims 1, 3, [0001], [0011]), any of which meets the claimed sliding member wherein, in the matrix, any element of Cu, Al and Sn is a first component.
Regarding claim 3, the hard particles disclosed by Gruenthaler [0010], are materials which have a higher hardness than the matrix materials disclosed by Gruenthaler (claims 1, 3, [0001], [0011]). In an example, Gruenthaler further discloses that the hardness of the overall layer increases upon addition of hard particles relative to the matrix material without hard particles [0038], thereby disclosing that the hard particles have a higher hardness than the matrix.
Regarding claim 5, Gruenthaler generally discloses oxides and nitrides among options for the hard particles (claim 2, [0010]). By definition, oxides are compounds with O, and nitrides are compounds with N. Gruenthaler specifically names compounds of Si, C, B, Fe, Ti, Al, W, Cr, and Zr among options for hard particles [0010].
Regarding claim 6, Gruenthaler discloses that a volume proportion of the hard particles is 2-20% in the sliding layer (claim 1, [0009]) which overlaps the claimed range or 0.1-5.0%. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruenthaler (DE19622166A1) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Sakai (US20020026855).
Regarding claim 4, Gruenthaler discloses hard particles [0010], which chemically are significantly harder than the matrix materials disclosed by Gruenthaler (claim 1, [0011]), but Gruenthaler discloses the hardness of the composite sliding layer material as a whole (claim 4, [0012]), but Gruenthaler does not disclose the relative hardnesses of particle and matrix phases.
Sakai teaches a sliding member (sliding material, title, abstract, [0036], [0042], Fig. 5). Sakai teaches that the sliding member comprises a base material (back metal 2) and a sliding layer that is laminated on the base material (bearing alloy 4) ([0036], [0042], Fig. 5). Sakai teaches that the sliding layer has two phases, at least one of the phases comprising a matrix and particle phases (phase with hard particles dispersed therein) (abstract, [0037]). Sakai teaches the material of the sliding layer satisfies H2/H1 .
≥
1.2 in which H1 is the Vickers hardness of the softest phase and H2 is the Vickers hardness of a phase hardest in hardness (abstract, [0010], [0037]). Sakai teaches that sliding material in which a soft phase and a hard phase are mixed with each other, has anti-seizure property and fatigue resistance [0009-10], and Sakai attributes the improvements in anti-seizing properties to a hardness ratio greater than or equal to 1.2 [0012].
Both Gruenthaler and Sakai teach similar materials for a sliding layer comprising both hard and soft phases.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to select the hard particle and matrix materials of the sliding layer (running layer) disclosed by Gruenthaler disclosed above so that the ratio of the Vickers hardness of the hard particles to the Vickers hardness of the matrix material disclosed by Gruenthaler is greater than or equal to 1.2 because Sakai teaches that a ratio of the Vickers hardness of the hardest phase to the Vickers hardness of the softest phase in sliding material results in improved anti-seizing and fatigue resistance [0012]. A ratio of the Vickers hardness of the hard phase to the Vickers hardness of the matrix phase greater than or equal to 1.2 encompasses the presently claimed range of 5-50. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissan Motor (JPS6112844A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Univ Southeast (CN 113789511A). Univ Southeast is cited in the IDS filed March 2, 2026. References are directed to the examiner-supplied English language translation.
Regarding claim 8, Nissan Motor discloses that the sliding layer is adhered or bonded to the base material (sentence extending from page 5 to page 6 of the description translation), but Nissan Motor does not disclose an adhesive strength of the sliding layer.
Univ Southeast teaches a bearing member comprising a base material (steel substrate) and a bearing layer (copper alloy layer) that is laminated on the base material (abstract, claim 1, [n0004]). Univ Southeast teaches that the material of the bearing layer has a matrix and precipitate phases distributed therein [n0020]. Univ Southeast teaches that the adhesive strength (bonding strength) between the base material and bearing layer is more than 300 N/mm2 (1 MPa = 1 N/mm2) [n0021], [n0058] and considers an adhesive strength less than 300 N/mm2 as unfavorable [n0063]. Univ Southeast teaches that peeling can cause failing in a bearing member [n0019].
Both Nissan Motor and Univ Southeast teach a bearing member comprising a bearing surface laminated on a base material [a sliding layer is a species of the bearing surface genus]. Both Nissan Motor and Univ Southeast teach that the bearing layer comprises a matrix phase with at least one other phase dispersed therein.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to form the sliding member disclosed by Nissan Motor, applied above to have an adhesive (bonding) strength between the base material and the sliding layer more than 300 N/mm2 because Univ Southeast teaches that an adhesive force of more than 300 N/mm2 between a bearing layer and base material as effective and appropriate for bearing materials [n0021], [n0058] and an adhesive force less than 300 N/mm2 as unfavorable [n0063]. As Univ Southeast teaches that peeling, a result of low adhesive force, is a mode of failure in a bearing member [n0019] one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the adhesive force between the sliding layer and base material of the sliding member disclosed by Nissan Motor, applied above, in order to prevent failure of the sliding member.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruenthaler (DE19622166A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Univ Southeast (CN 113789511A).
Regarding claim 8, Gruenthaler discloses good bonding as a favorable result [0031], but Gruenthaler is silent on the adhesive strength between the base material and sliding layer.
Univ Southeast teaches a bearing member comprising a base material (steel substrate) and a bearing layer (copper alloy layer) that is laminated on the base material (abstract, claim 1, [n0004]). Univ Southeast teaches that the material of the bearing layer has a matrix and precipitate phases distributed therein [n0020]. Univ Southeast teaches that the adhesive strength (bonding strength) between the base material and bearing layer is more than 300 N/mm2 (1 MPa = 1 N/mm2) [n0021], [n0058] and considers an adhesive strength less than 300 N/mm2 as unfavorable [n0063]. Univ Southeast teaches that peeling can cause failing in a bearing member [n0019].
Both Gruenthaler and Univ Southeast teach a bearing member comprising a bearing surface laminated on a base material [a sliding layer is a species of the bearing surface genus]. Both Gruenthaler and Univ Southeast teach that the bearing layer comprises a matrix phase with at least one other phase dispersed therein.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to form the sliding member disclosed by Gruenthaler, applied above to have an adhesive (bonding) strength between the base material and the sliding layer more than 300 N/mm2 because Univ Southeast teaches that an adhesive force of more than 300 N/mm2 between a bearing layer and base material as effective and appropriate for bearing materials [n0021], [n0058] and an adhesive force less than 300 N/mm2 as unfavorable [n0063]. As Gruenthaler discloses good bonding as a favorable result [0031], and Univ Southeast teaches that peeling, a result of low adhesive force, is a mode of failure in a bearing member [n0019] one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the adhesive force between the sliding layer and base material of the sliding member disclosed by Gruenthaler, applied above, in order to prevent failure of the sliding member.
Claim(s) 9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissan Motor (JPS6112844A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato (US20240044368). Sato is the publication of an application for patent in the United States effectively filed prior to the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
Regarding claim 9, Nissan Motor is silent on the thickness specifically of the sliding layer.
Sato teaches a sliding member (Title, abstract, [0001]). Sato teaches that the sliding member comprises a base material (metal substrate 2) and a sliding layer (sliding layer 3) that is laminated on the base material (Fig. 1, [0006-08], [0021-23], [0096], [0098]). Sato teaches that the sliding layer has a matrix and particle phases dispersed in the matrix (abstract, [0024-26], [0038-40]. Sato teaches that the sliding layer may further comprise a lubricating particle phase [0030-31], [0101]. Sato teaches that the sliding layer has a thickness of 0.3 mm or less [0098].
Both Nissan Motor and Sato teach sliding members with a sliding layer which has a matrix phase and particle phases dispersed therein.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to provide the sliding member disclosed by Nissan Motor, applied above, with a sliding layer thickness of 0.3 mm or less because Sato teaches a sliding layer thickness of 0.3 mm or less for the same types of sling layers of a sliding member [0098]. The sliding layer disclosed by Nissan Motor, applied above, must necessarily have some thickness, and in view of Sato [0098], a sliding layer thickness of 0.3 mm or less would predictably be effective for a sliding layer comprising matrix and particle phases. A thickness range of less than 0.3 mm lies entirely within the thickness range recited in claim 9.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Nissan Motor is silent on the surface roughness. Sato teaches intentionally finish polishing the surface of the sliding layer so that the surface roughness of the bearing alloy Ra is 0.5 μm [0126]. The sliding layer of the sliding member disclosed by Nissan Motor, applied above, must necessarily have some surface roughness. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to polish the surface of the sliding layer disclosed by Nissan Motor, applied above to an average roughness Ra of 0.5 µm because Sato teaches an average roughness of 0.5 µm as appropriate for sliding layer material [0126]. As Sato teaches that the surface roughness may be obtained by finish polishing [0126], one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to treat the sliding member disclosed by Nissan Motor to attain an intended surface roughness, and in view of Sato [0126], one of skill in the art would have recognized a surface roughness of 0.5 µm as effective for a sliding layer of a sliding member. An average roughness of 0.5 µm meets the ranges recited in both claim 11 and claim 12.
Claim(s) 9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruenthaler (DE19622166A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato (US20240044368).
Regarding claim 9, Gruenthaler is silent on the thickness of the sliding layer.
Sato teaches a sliding member (Title, abstract, [0001]). Sato teaches that the sliding member comprises a base material (metal substrate 2) and a sliding layer (sliding layer 3) that is laminated on the base material (Fig. 1, [0006-08], [0021-23], [0096], [0098]). Sato teaches that the sliding layer has a matrix and hard particle phases dispersed in the matrix (abstract, [0024-26], [0038-40]. Sato teaches that the sliding layer has a thickness of 0.3 mm or less [0098].
Both Gruenthaler and Sato teach sliding members with a sliding layer which has a matrix phase and hard particle phases dispersed therein.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to provide the sliding member disclosed by Gruenthaler, applied above, with a sliding layer thickness of 0.3 mm or less because Sato teaches a sliding layer thickness of 0.3 mm or less for the same types of sling layers of a sliding member [0098]. The sliding layer disclosed by Gruenthaler, applied above, must necessarily have some thickness, and in view of Sato [0098], a sliding layer thickness of 0.3 mm or less would predictably be effective for a sliding layer comprising matrix and hard particle phases. A thickness range of less than 0.3 mm lies entirely within the thickness range recited in claim 9.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Gruenthaler discloses peak-to-valley roughness (Rz) of an example and suggests that lower roughness is preferred [0032]. Peak to valley roughness (Rz) measures the extremities in roughness and yields larger values than the average roughness amplitude (Ra). Gruenthaler is silent on the average roughness amplitude (Ra). Sato teaches intentionally finish polishing the surface of the sliding layer so that the surface roughness of the bearing alloy Ra is 0.5 μm [0126]. The sliding layer of the sliding member disclosed by Gruenthaler, applied above, must necessarily have some surface roughness. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to polish the surface of the sliding layer disclosed by Gruenthaler, applied above to an average roughness Ra of 0.5 µm because Sato teaches an average roughness of 0.5 µm as appropriate for sliding layer material [0126] and because Gruenthaler suggests lower surface roughness as a favorable property [0032]. As Sato teaches that the surface roughness may be obtained by finish polishing [0126], one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to treat the sliding member disclosed by Gruenthaler to attain an intended surface roughness, and in view of Sato [0126], one of skill in the art would have recognized a surface roughness of 0.5 µm as effective for a sliding layer of a sliding member. An average roughness of 0.5 µm meets the ranges recited in both claim 11 and claim 12.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissan Motor (JPS6112844A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujita (US20030209297).
Regarding claim 10, Nissan Motor does not disclose the extent to which the base material is affected by heating on forming the sliding layer.
Fujita teaches a sliding member [0026]. Fujita teaches manufacturing the sliding member of a composite material comprising a base material (back metal) and a bearing layer (metal plate) (abstract, [0004]). Fujita teaches forming the sliding layer by heating sliding layer powder material on the base material [0004], [0010]. Fujita teaches forming the sliding layer with a laser beam [0011] which Fujita teaches has the advantages only a small thermal effect on the back metal and easily performed quenching due to localized heating and [0011]. Fujita teaches that the thickness direction up to which the base material is affected by heat from the sliding layer (depth of the heat-affected zone) on forming the bearing layer is at or below 300 µm (0.3 mm) [0030]. Fujita teaches that when the depth up to which the base material is affected by heat is set at or below 300 µm (0.3 mm), heat does not affect the overall base material [0031].
Both Nissan Motor and Fujita teach sliding members made from a layer laminated onto a base material.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to form the sliding layer disclosed by Nissan Motor, applied above, with a laser because of the advantages which Fujita teaches for forming a bearing layer on a base material with a localized, laser heat source [0011]. In forming with the laser as taught by Fujita, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain the heat-affected depth at or below 300 µm (0.3 mm) because Fujita teaches that when the depth up to which the base material is affected by heat is set at or below 300 µm (0.3 mm), heat does not affect the overall base material [0031]; therefore, maintaining a depth of the heat-affected zone at or below 300 µm would be predicted to avoid materially affecting the overall base material. A range at or below 300 µm lies entirely within the claimed range of
≤
500
µm
. Paragraph [0061] of the present specification as filed confirms that the thickness recited in claim 10 is a heat-affected depth in the base material on forming the sliding layer.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruenthaler (DE19622166A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujita (US20030209297).
Regarding claim 10, Gruenthaler does not disclose the extent to which the base material is affected by heating on forming the sliding layer.
Fujita teaches a sliding member [0026]. Fujita teaches manufacturing the sliding member of a composite material comprising a base material (back metal) and a bearing layer (metal plate) (abstract, [0004]). Fujita teaches forming the sliding layer by heating sliding layer powder material on the base material [0004], [0010]. Fujita teaches forming the sliding layer with a laser beam [0011] which Fujita teaches has the advantages only a small thermal effect on the back metal and easily performed quenching due to localized heating and [0011]. Fujita teaches that the thickness direction up to which the base material is affected by heat from the sliding layer (depth of the heat-affected zone) on forming the bearing layer is at or below 300 µm (0.3 mm) [0030]. Fujita teaches that when the depth up to which the base material is affected by heat is set at or below 300 µm (0.3 mm), heat does not affect the overall base material [0031].
Both Gruenthaler and Fujita teach sliding members made from a layer laminated onto a base material.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to form the sliding layer disclosed by Gruenthaler, applied above, with a laser because of the advantages which Fujita teaches for forming a bearing layer on a base material with a localized, laser heat source [0011]. In forming with the laser as taught by Fujita, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain the heat-affected depth at or below 300 µm (0.3 mm) because Fujita teaches that when the depth up to which the base material is affected by heat is set at or below 300 µm (0.3 mm), heat does not affect the overall base material [0031]; therefore, maintaining a depth of the heat-affected zone at or below 300 µm would be predicted to avoid materially affecting the overall base material. A range at or below 300 µm lies entirely within the claimed range of
≤
500
µm
. Paragraph [0061] of the present specification as filed confirms that the thickness recited in claim 10 is a heat-affected depth in the base material on forming the sliding layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights