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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed March 21, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically NPL item 1 is said to be a 6 page international office action, however what appears to have been filed in its place is a 9 page German action, this is not an international office action nor do the page numbers in the citation match.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because new figure 2 points to the same element using reference characters 13 and 14, however these characters are meant to indicate distinct elements. How is the same rectangular shape both a spring and a guide element? As previously stated in claim 7, now claim 13, there is a gap between the elements, however showing the elements with the same rectangular shape does not properly illustrate the invention. Adding a reference character to the old figure 2 pointing to a part already designated as the spring 13 does not resolve the issue previously raised. A separate and distinct guide member as set forth in claim 7 is still not shown and a gap as now required by claim 13 is not shown.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 2, should read - - sliding layer is a sliding material including a fibre-reinforced plastic- -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schuelke, DE102020208821.
Regarding claim 1, Schuelke discloses a sliding segment (1, specifically the embodiment in figure 13), which can be connected to a bearing housing (59), the sliding segment (1) comprising a sliding layer (1 indicates a sliding layer) on a side facing a shaft (4) which forms a sliding surface (at 76) which contacts a sliding surface of the shaft (contacts the sliding surface of the shaft 4), the sliding layer (1) also having a crowning in a direction of an axis (the curved surface of 1 at 76 forms a crowning, see previously provided translation, page 6).
Regarding claim 2, Schuelke discloses that the sliding surface (76) in a direction of rotation of the shaft has a segment diameter based on a shaft diameter (see figures 1-4, 7 and 10-12 which all show that the segment further curves around the shaft, the phrase “based on a shaft diameter” does not limit the claim to any particular structure, each segment has a diameter that is larger enough so as to fit around the shaft).
Regarding claim 3, Schuelke discloses that the crowning is a uniaxially convex curved surface in a direction of the shaft (the crowning aspect of the segment as shown in figure 13 is only in one direction of the pad, that being the axial direction of the shaft just like figure 5 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 7, Schuelke discloses a spring element (6, made of three springs 11/12/13) is attached between the sliding segment (1) and a support structure (the springs run between attachment points on the segments 1 to the support structure web at 26/27/28), said spring element being held by a guide element which encloses the spring element (5, the cage element as disclosed forms a larger overall guide element which encloses the spring element(s) in the axial direction as shown in figure 13), wherein the guide element is attached to the sliding segment and the support structure (5 as a whole contacts 1 in figure 13 and also is attached to the web elements 26-28).
Regarding claim 13, Schuelke discloses that a gap is arranged between the spring element and the guide element (there is a gap between the axial end of 6 and 5 in figure 13).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuelke, DE102020208821.
Regarding claim 5, Schuelke, while disclosing a similar bearing element, does not disclose that the crowning of the sliding layer of the sliding segment to form the sliding layer has a height in the range of 5 µm to 200 µm (clm 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Schuelke and set the degree of crowning to any desired rate or height, including a height range of 5 to 200 micrometers, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (a crowned tilt pad type bearing), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USP 233. Furthermore, adjusting the degree/height of crowning provides the predictable result of adjusting a total tilt range of the pad (the pad can only tilt by an amount defined by the gap between the pad and the shaft, this is limited at the ends of the pad by the degree of crowning) and the height of the crowning also acts to control this spacing and overall tilt, the higher the crowning the less gap is present between the parts.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuelke, DE102020208821, in view of Matsuhisa, USP 9,506,004.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Schuelke discloses the use of plastic (see page 4 of the translation), however Schuelke does not disclose that the sliding layer is a fibre-reinforced plastic as the sliding material [clm 6], and more particularly the sliding layer comprises a fibre-reinforced poly- ether-ether-ketone as the sliding material [clm 12].
Matsuhisa discloses that in a sliding bearing the sliding layer can be made from polyetheretherketone with a reinforcement fiber (see column 2, line 66-column 3, line 6) for the purpose of providing a sliding layer with seizure resistance, wear resistance and mechanical strength properties (see column 2, line 66-column 3, line 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Schuelke and make the sliding layer out of any previously known material, including a fibre reinforced poly-ether-ether-ketone, as taught by Matsuhisa, for the purpose of providing a sliding layer with seizure resistance, wear resistance and mechanical strength properties and because 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the IDS, Applicant’s Remarks do not address the first issue raised, references listed in the specification not cited on the IDS, and thus this issue remains. Regarding the second issue Applicant argues that the relevant part was provided and thus the IDS is in compliance. However, this argument does not resolve the issue that what was cited does not match what was actual filed. At the very least the citation in the IDS is incorrect and what was cited was not provided. Applicant must file what is actually cited in the IDS for consideration, not a portion of a larger document, when the citation states that the larger document is what is being provided, or a different yet related document than what is cited.
With regards to the drawing objection see the amended objection above.
With regards to Schuelke, Applicant argues that the reference is substantially different than the claimed invention. Applicant specifically argues that in Schuelke “crowning” is solely for tolerance compensation and that this is not a profiling as claimed. However, the claim provides no structural distinction, regardless of what the crowning is stated to be used for the claim is only limited to the structure recited and a Schuelke clearly anticipates this structure. What structure that is recited by the claim is not present in Schuelke?
Applicant goes on to further state that the distinction between the instant application and the prior art is “an additional profiling” however this additional profiling or a profiling plus a distinct crowning is not recited by the claim. The claim only requires crowning which Schuelke clearly illustrates and discusses in the disclosure. Applicant further states that “crowning” refers to shape and texture, however no evidence of the term referencing a particular texture is provided and crowning traditional only references a curvature not a texture. If Applicant is now stating that “crowning” has a different meaning than the traditional term this may result in a lexicographer issue in the future, see MPEP 2173.05(a). Applicant’s remarks also reference “in the direction of the axis” however, at least claim 1, does not actually define any particular axis of the shaft, this recitation can include any axis, such as the longitudinal or radial axis of the shaft, and is thus not particular limiting, however the prior art is applied in a manner consistent with the axis as illustrated in the instant application. Applicant further discusses hydrodynamic pressure, however a hydrodynamic bearing is not being claimed nor are the particular elements such as gap width recited in the claim, only a sliding segment is being claimed, any sliding segment from any plain type bearing (contact, hydrodynamic or aerodynamic) would be applicable to the claim
The independent claim presented only requires a sliding segment with a sliding layer facing the shaft and that layer must contact the shaft and have a crowning, Schuelke clearly anticipates this claim as explained above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES PILKINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-5052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7-3.
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.
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights