DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The response dated 08/01/2026 was considered and found to be persuasive. New grounds of rejections are made below.
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 16 – 18 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "bearing" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims dependent thereon are rejected on the same basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Korzhenko et al. (WO 2013/182793 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Korzhenko et al. (WO 2013/182793 A1)
In regard to claims 1 – 6, Korzhenko teaches a polymeric matrix comprising low concentrations of carbon nanofillers such as carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibres or graphene or mixtures, and comprising a conventional filler (abstract). The conventional filler such as glass fiber is present at amounts of from 0.1 to 10%, the carbon nanofiller is present at 1 ppm to 0.5% or 10 ppm to 0.3% with the balance of the thermoplastic polymer such as polyether ether ketone (peek) (specification).
Claims 1 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zheng et al. (CN 209063596 U)
In regard to claims 1 – 12, Zheng teaches self-lubricating material on the surface of a metal base layer (abstract). The self-lubricating layer comprises a polymer matrix such as polytetrafluoroethylene (ptfe) or polyether ether ketone (peek) and at least one additive present at 5 to 35% in the matrix such as solid lubricants comprising one or more of graphite, graphite oxide, graphene, graphene oxide etc., and/or antiwear such as aramid powder, carbon fiber, glass fiber etc. and the metal matrix/base is carbon steel plate and useful in a hydraulic gear pump [0006 – 0009, Examples 1, 2].
The lubricating layer is useful on a rolled bearing [0035, 0036]. The bearing is a sliding and rolling bearing [0039, 0074]. In the examples, the polymer can be ptfe or peek and can be present at an amount of 95%, and the additives can comprise molybdenum disulfide, aromatic (i.e., aramid) and graphite at amounts of 2%, 1% and 2% respectively, thus allowing for the presence of polymer at 95%, and the solid lubricant and antiwear to be present at minimum amounts 2% and/or 1% each respectively, and at maximum combined amounts of up to 35% in the lubricating layer.
Since one or more of the solid lubricants and one or more of the antiwear compounds are useful, the amounts would be expected to overlap the claimed ranges. Thus, the use of graphene as solid lubricant and glass fiber as antiwear at such additive amounts would be obvious. The lubricating layer would be expected to provide the property of electrical insulation of the bearing according to the limitation of claim 7.
In regard to claims 13 – 18, Zheng teaches the bearing for hydraulic gears but does not particularly recite the plurality of rolling elements in a raceway between bearing rings. However, the presence of such plurality of rolling elements and a raceway comprising bearing rings for such rolling bearings for hydraulic gears is known in view of Xie (CN 208651439 U), and thus makes it obvious to use the lubricating coating of Zheng for the bearing of Xie, as Zheng teaches the coating for such bearings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
