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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/23/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-8, 10-12, 16-17, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leuthold (US 6019516 A).
Regarding claim 1, Leuthold discloses (in figs. 7, 9 and annotated fig. 8) a hydrodynamic sliding bearing comprising:
an inner ring element (50);
an outer ring element (32),
wherein the inner ring element (50) and the outer ring element (32) are rotatable relative to each other about an axis of rotation (AoR);
wherein either the inner ring element (50) or the outer ring element has a sliding surface (SS) spanning an entire length of the inner ring element (50) or the outer ring element from a first axial end (FAE) to a second axial end (SAE) and the other one of the inner ring element or the outer ring element (32) has a counter surface (32 surface facing the sliding surface of 50) corresponding with the sliding surface (SS),
and wherein the sliding surface (SS) has a non-circular shaped cross section (the grooves 60 allows 50 to have a non-circular shaped cross section, as discussed in the previous interview any feature that would divert the shape from a pure circle would define a non-circular shape, this is what the grooves do in Leuthold) and is continuously tapered in an entirety of an axial extension of along the entire sliding surface (SS) from the first axial end (FAE) to the second axial end (SAE) of the inner ring element (50) or the outer ring element.
PNG
media_image1.png
598
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Leuthold discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein the cross section of the sliding surface (SS) comprises a first lobe (LB1) and a second lobe (LB2), wherein in axial extension, the first lobe (LB1) has a varying first radial distance to the axis of rotation (AoR, there is varying first radial distance because of the grooves and non grooves areas and based on the shape as shown in figure 7).
Regarding claim 3, Leuthold discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 2, wherein the first lobe (LB1) and the second lobe (LB2) when viewed in the cross-section are shaped as fixed circular arc segments (LB1 and LB2 as illustrated above are meant to indicate circular segments of the overall annular bearing sleeve).
Regarding claim 4, Leuthold discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 2, wherein when viewed in the cross-section each one of the lobes (LB1, LB2) has an offset or tilt to the axis of rotation (AoR in annotated fig. 8, offset or tilt in this context seems to mean spaced from the axis, any bearing with these lobes would that are ultimately inclined to the AoR would at the very least have a tilt).
Regarding claim 5, Leuthold discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 2, wherein the first lobe (LB1) and the second lobe (LB2) are separated by a lubricant supply groove (grooves 60 that connect directly to a corresponding groove 98) extending in axial direction.
Regarding claim 6, Leuthold discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 5, wherein a plurality of the lubricant supply grooves (four groupings of a groove 98 connected with one of the grooves 60, each groove 60 in the groupings being a supply groove) are distributed as a regular circular pattern over the circumference of the sliding surface.
Regarding claim 7, Leuthold discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 5, wherein the lubricant supply groove extends over the entire axial extension of the sliding surface (SS, 60 of the supply groove system runs the entire axial length).
Regarding claim 8, Leuthold discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 5, wherein a lubricant distribution groove (at 98) overlies the lubricant supply groove (60), the lubricant distribution groove (98) extending only partially in an axial extension of the sliding surface (SS, 98 extends axially inward from the end faces into the sliding surface).
Regarding claim 10, Leuthold discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein the sliding surface (SS) is an unbroken surface in circumferential direction (in the instant application the sliding surfaces can include steps however the span between these steps can be considered unbroken, similarly the span between each groove 60 in the sliding surface of Leuthold can be considered unbroken).
Regarding claim 11, Leuthold discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein the sliding surface (SS) is segmented in circumferential direction and comprises a first segment (SG1) and a second segment (SG2), wherein the first segment (SG1) and the second segment (SG2) are seamlessly connected to each other (in the instant application, the first and second segment are seamlessly connect to each other, even though there are steps, so the sliding surface of Leuthold can be considered having first and second segment being seamlessly connected to each other).
Regarding claim 12, Leuthold discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein the counter surface (surface of 32 facing the sliding surface of 50) has a circular shaped cross section, and is tapered in axial direction.
Regarding claim 16, Leuthold discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 1, wherein the sliding surface (SS) is arranged on the inner ring element (50) and has a concave shape in axial direction (looking for the bearing outward, left to right in figure 7, from the view point of the center the surface can be considered concave).
Regarding claim 17, Leuthold discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 1 that the sliding surface is applied on the outer ring element (32) and has a convex shape in axial direction (col. 6, lines 60-67 discloses that the outer ring element 32 can have grooves instead of the inner ring element 50, so the outer ring can have the non-circular sliding surface, while not illustrated this disclosure by Leuthold anticipates the claim).
Regarding claim 21, Leuthold discloses a hydrodynamic sliding bearing comprising:
an inner ring element (50);
an outer ring element (32),
wherein the inner ring element (50) and the outer ring element (32) are rotatable relative to each other about an axis of rotation (AoR);
wherein either the inner ring element (50) or the outer ring element has a sliding surface (SS) and the other one of the inner ring element or the outer ring element (32) has a counter surface corresponding with the sliding surface,
wherein the sliding surface (SS) comprises a first non-circular shaped profile (P1) and a second non-circular shaped profile (P2) being in axial offset to each other,
wherein the first noncircular shaped profile (P1) and the second non-circular shaped profile (P2) are of different dimensions,
wherein the sliding surface (SS) is an extrusion of the first non-circular shaped profile (P1) merging into the second non-circular shaped profile (P2) along guide paths such that the sliding surface (SS) is tapered.
Regarding claim 22, Leuthold teaches the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 21, wherein the first non-circular shaped profile (P1) and the second non-circular shaped profile (P2) of the sliding surface (SS) have a multi-lobe shape.
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leuthold (US 6019516 A) in view of Lee (US 5854524 A).
Regarding claim 14, Leuthold discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 12 but does not disclose the counter surface is tapered in axial direction in the form of a spherical segment.
Lee teaches (in fig. 3) the sliding surface and counter surface is tapered in axial direction in the form of a spherical segment for the purpose of increasing supporting force against load in an axial direction (col. 1, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sliding surface and counter surface be tapered in axial direction in the form of a spherical segment, as taught by Lee, in the hydrodynamic sliding bearing of Leuthold for the purpose of increasing supporting force against load in an axial direction (col. 1, lines 6-9).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leuthold (US 6019516 A) in view of Rudolph (US 20210310514 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Leuthold discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 1, but does not disclose the non-circular shaped cross section of the sliding surface has an elliptical shape.
Rudolph teaches the non-circular shaped cross section of the sliding surface has an elliptical shape for the purpose of specially intended load distribution on the hydrodynamic sliding bearing (para. [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the non-circular shaped cross section of the sliding surface to have an elliptical shape, as taught by Rudoph, in the hydrodynamic sliding bearing of Leuthold for the purpose of specially intended load distribution on the hydrodynamic sliding bearing (para. [0035]).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leuthold (US 6019516 A) alone.
Regarding claim 19, Leuthold (in annotated fig. 7 and annotated fig. 8) discloses the hydrodynamic sliding bearing comprising a longitudinal section plane (SP in annotated fig. 8), the sliding surface (SS) has a first radius (R1 or R2), and the counter surface (surface of 32 facing the sliding surface of 50) has a second radius (that would correspond to R2 or if measured relative to the axis of rotation would be greater than R2), wherein the first radius (R1) and the second radius (R2) are offset to each other by a clearance (X shows a clearance between the different radius ends which would correspond to sliding surfaces elements of the bearing and counter surfaces, however with the build-up of dynamic pressure there would also be a clearance between the parts, the claim does not specifically define what the offset is and could be inclusive of any clearance between dynamic surfaces in a bearing) but does not disclose the clearance has a magnitude which is in the range of 0.00005 to 0.002 multiplied by the first radius.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the clearance have a magnitude which is in the range of 0.00005 to 0.002 multiplied by the first radius, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the clearance have a magnitude which is in the range of 0.00005 to 0.002 multiplied by the first radius, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific size of the clearance solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (the claimed dimension lacks any clear criticality) and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless if the clearance have a magnitude which is in the range of 0.00005 to 0.002 multiplied by the first radius or not. For example, if the clearance is too large, too much lubricant will flow between the rings and if the clearance is too small, not enough lubricant can flow between the rings, which would affect the efficiency of the hydrodynamic bearing.
PNG
media_image2.png
490
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Leuthold teaches the hydrodynamic sliding bearing according to claim 19, wherein longitudinal section plane (SP in annotated fig. 8) is located at a circumferential distance of 10° to 30° to the lubricant supply groove (the claim recitation is defining an arbitrary location for the plane to be located, the plane can be placed in a number of different locations and the section still anticipate the claimed invention, the location of the plane does not structurally limit the invention).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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 claim 9.
In particular, for the claim 9, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the hydrodynamic sliding bearing comprising the lubricant supply groove is formed by a kink or a step between the first lobe and the second lobe, wherein in axial direction an edge of the lubricant supply groove has a varying second radial distance to the axis of rotation in combination with the other claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-15, filed 06/23/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Conclusion
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
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights