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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 and 23 in the reply filed on 08/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the independent claims do not require a floropolymer. While it is acknowledged that the independent claims of group I, do not specifically require a fluoropolymer, all the three layers of the composite structure do include fluoropolymers, as required by claims 6, 9 and 15, which are part of group I. Additionally, as discussed in the restriction requirement the layered structure of group I (where all three layers can include fluoropolymers) can be generated by a routine compression molding procedure without the additive manufacturing procedure as required by the method claims of group II. Applicant is reminded that the inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, applicant has not provided any reason as to why the layered bearing structure of group I cannot be created by compression molding which is a materially different process from the additive manufacturing requirement of group II.
Applicant’s argument on traversing the restriction is found to be unpersuasive and the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 and 3 (and dependent claims 2, 6, 9, 12, 15-17 and 23) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, which recites the term high in “a high coefficient of thermal linear expansion (“CLTE”)’, which is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term “high” 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.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, require “other fluoropolymers”, renders the claim language indefinite since it fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. The specification also does not provide the definition of “other fluoropolymers”. Since the term “other fluoropolymers” include fluoropolymers such as Nafion TM, which is an unsuitable bearing material, applicant is encouraged to define the “other fluoropolymers” clearly.
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, 4-9, 16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Weston et al. US2010/0155003 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 9, 16 and 23, Weston teaches (reference claim 1) a bearing cylinder generated by a plurality of segments which are arranged side-by-side. Weston’s curved segment (Fig. 5) corresponds to the bearing member, which include a first region formed of a hard material and a second region formed of a soft material. Weston notes that the hard material can be a carbon or glass filled thermoplastic, such as PTFE (paras [0015] and [0033]) which corresponds to applicant’s dynamic surface layer (instant claim 9). Weston adds that the second surface which is softer has a higher thermal expansion coefficient (para [0034]), corresponds to the required first static surface. Weston (para [0018]) recommends Rulon TM which is a PTFE plastic (instant claim 6) as the material for the second surface.
Weston discloses that the surfaces (or panels) can be glued together (para [0038]), meeting the requirement of adhesive bonding the first layer to the second layer (instant claim 16).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 7-8 since Weston’s Rulon TM material is also noted by the instant specification (para [0059]) as an appropriate material for the static layer, the CLTE requirements of instant claims 4 and 5 would be inherently satisfied. Similarly, Weston’s disclosure of PTFE as the hard material corresponding to applicant’s dynamic layer (instant specification para [0060] lists PTFE as suitable dynamic bearing surface material) would satisfy the required CLTE range of instant claims 7-8. Applicant’s attention is directed to: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 10-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston as applied to claims 1, 4-9, 16 and 23 above, and further in view of Buss et al. US 2017/0232716 A1.
Regarding claims 2-3, 12, 15 and 17, Weston is silent on presence of a reinforcing layer between the two bearing layers. Reference Buss who also teaches fluoropolymer based layered structures (abstract), discloses inclusion of a second layer between the first and third fluoropolymer layers, where the second layer is a reinforcing fabric layer, with two faces (Buss Fig. 1, Buss claim 1). Buss notes that the reinforcing fabric layer can include aramid fiber (C fiber), glass fiber and PTFE (para [0080] and para [0083]), which meets the requirement of claim 15. Advantageously, Buss provides the motivation for inclusion of a reinforcing layer as it provides adhesive strength between the layers, which reduces blistering and delamination of the composite structure (Buss paras [0045] and [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have included within Weston’s two bearing (static and dynamic) layers a reinforcing layer as taught by Buss for the same application of creating a trilayer composite structure such that the reinforcing layer is sandwiched between the two bearing layers, so as to provide a final composite with improved adhesive strength and reduced delamination.
Regarding claims 10-11, as discussed when addressing claims 7-8, Weston’s disclosure of PTFE as the hard material corresponding to applicant’s dynamic layer would satisfy the required CLTE range.
Regarding claims 13-14, Instant specification notes that the reinforcing layer may be formed from fabrics which include polymers such as PTFE (instant specification para [0012] and Clause 10, page 17). Buss does not provide the CLTE values for the reinforcing layer, however owing to the closeness of materials disclosed, it would necessarily follow that the reinforcing layer of Buss, would possess the CLTE properties as defined by the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Surbhi M Du whose telephone number is (571)272-9960. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, Heidi (Riviere) Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/S.M.D./
Examiner
Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights