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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshimura (US 20060165335 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshimura (in fig. 25) discloses a shoe (9) for hydrodynamic bearing configured to be placed in contact with a lubricating fluid,
said shoe (9) comprising:
a base (9a) made of metallic material (para. [0060], steel);
a coating (9b, 9g) made of insulating material coupled to said base (9a, para. [0060] discloses that 9b is made of PTFE and para. [0103] disclose that 9g is made out of Teflon);
a temperature probe (9d and 13);
wherein said probe (9d and 13) comprises a temperature sensor (13) placed inside said coating (9b, 9g), the temperature sensor (13) being completely immersed within the coating (9b, 9g, the temperature sensor is under or below the outer surface of 9b and covered on the other side by 9g and is thus considered "immersed", see remarks below) and a conducting wire (9d) extending between a first end connected to said temperature sensor (13) and a second end facing outside said coating (9b, 9g) and configured to be in contact with said lubricating fluid (para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshimura discloses the shoe (9) according to claim 1, wherein said coating (9b, 9g) comprises a first portion (9g) connected to the base (9a) and a second portion (9b) placed on the first portion (9g) and configured to contact the lubricating fluid; said temperature sensor (tip of 13) being interposed between said first portion (9g) and said second portion (9b) or being immersed in said first portion (9g), said conducting wire (9d) being at least partially surrounded by the second portion (9b).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshimura discloses the shoe (9) according to claim 2, wherein said first portion (9g) and said second portion (9b) are made of the same material (para. [0060] and [0103] discloses 9b is made out of PTFE and 9g is made out of Teflon; however; Teflon and PTFE is the same. Teflon is a brand name for PTFE.)
Regarding claim 7, Yoshimura discloses the shoe (9) according to claim 2, wherein at least one of said first portion (9g) and said second portion (9b) comprises PEEK and/or PTFE (para. [0060] discloses that 9b is made of PTFE and para. [0103] disclose that 9g is made out of Teflon, which are the both PTFE);
Regarding claim 8, Yoshimura discloses (in fig. 1) a bearing (fig. 1) comprising the shoe (9) according to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 9-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the combination set forth in claims 3.
The prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the shoe comprising said second portion being deposited in the form of a layer on said first portion within and outside said groove in combination with the other claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the drawing objections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-10, Applicant is arguing that Yoshimura does not teach or suggest a temperature sensor placed inside said coating, the temperature sensor being completely immersed with the coating, as recited in claim 1. However, the temperature sensor 13 is under or below the outer surface of 9b and covered on the other side by 9g and is thus considered "immersed.”
Fig. 25 of Yoshimura is similar to figs. 2-3 of the instant application. In Yoshimura fig. 25, the temperature sensor 13 is covered by the coating 9b, 9g and it is attached to the similar component acting as a conducting wire 9d. Similarly, in the instant application, the temperature sensor 5 is covered by a coating and attached to a conducting wire 6; where the conducting wire can be its own component like 9d of Yoshimura. As a result, Yoshimura would have a similar structure to the instant application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AIMEE T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 EST.
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.
/AIMEE TRAN NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617