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 § 103
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 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) 1-5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folsom (US 20030166430 A1) in view of Adam (US 6528143 B1) and in further view of Kato (US 20150240637 A1) and in further view of Lanvermeyer (US 2613120 A).
Regarding claim 1, Folsom discloses (in figs. 2, 78 and 86-91) a bearing (410) for supporting a swash plate (408) of a hydraulic static transmission (fig. 2) that is coupled to a support (415) adapted to support a swash plate (408) applied to a hydraulic static transmission (fig. 2) and is provided to reduce friction that occurs between the swash plate (408) and the support (415) when the swash plate (408) rotates,
the bearing (410) comprising: a first plate (PTFE portion of 410) provided with a contact surface (surface of PTFE portion of 410) that comes into contact with a swash plate curved surface (curved surface of 408) of the swash plate (408) on one side thereof, and made of a polytetrafluoroethylene material (para. [0116] discloses a low friction polymer surface PTFE on 410, PTFE is a polytetrafluoroethylene material),
and a second plate (non PTFE portion of 410) formed in a shape rounded to have a curvature, configured to be superimposed on the first plate (PTFE portion of 410) to come into close contact with a remaining surface of the first plate (PTFE portion of 410) and retain a shape of the first plate (PTFE portion of 410),
wherein the first plate (PTFE portion of 410) comprises: a contact portion (surface of the PTFE portion of 410) provided with the contact surface and the second plate (metal portion of 410) comprises: a coupling portion (surface of the metal portion of 410) that is coupled to the contact portion (surface of the PTFE portion of 410).
Folsom does not disclose the second plate is made of a metal material.
Adam teaches a second plate made of a metal material (col. 3, lines 22-24 discloses the metallic backing material may be stainless steel, a copper alloy, aluminum or an aluminum alloy) for the purpose of having better heat conductivity (col. 1, lines 19-23).
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 second plate be made out of metal for the purpose of having better heat conductivity (col. 1, lines 19-23). It has also 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.
Folsom in view of Adam does not teach first fixation portions configured to be bent at both ends of the contact portion and then extend with the contact portion interposed therebetween, and to be fixed to the support; and second fixation portions configured to be bent at both ends of the coupling portion and then extend with the coupling portion interposed therebetween, and to be fixed to the support together with the first fixation portions; wherein the first fixation portions and the second fixation portions do not come into contact with the swash plate, fixation holes (Kato 80A) are formed in the first fixation portions (fixation portion of Folsom PTFE portion of 410) and the second fixation portions (fixation portion of Folsom metal portion of 410).
Kato teaches (in fig. 3) fixation portions (80) configured to be bent at both ends of the bearing (60) and fixed (via bolts 81 though bolt hole 80A) to the support (10) wherein the fixation portions do not come into contact with the swash plate (30), wherein fixation holes (Kato 80A) are formed in the first fixation portions (fixation portion of Folsom PTFE portion of 410) and the second fixation portions (fixation portion of Folsom metal portion of 410).
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 fixation portions and holes, as taught by Kato, in the bearing of Folsom in view of Adam for the purpose of keeping the bearing securely attached to the support. While Kato does not teach a first and second fixation portions, there would be a first and second fixation portions when the prior arts are combined.
Folsom in view of Adam and in further view of Kato does not disclose fixation holes are elongated holes, each of the elongated holes having a depth in a first direction running from a first surface to an opposing second surface of a respective one of the first fixation portions or second fixation portions, a width in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and a length in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, wherein the length is greater than the width.
Lanvermeyer teaches (in annotated fig. 3) fixation holes (13, 13’) are elongated holes (13, 13’), each of the elongated holes (13, 13’) having a depth in a first direction (1D) running from a first surface (top surface) to an opposing second surface (bottom surface) of a respective one of the first fixation portions (13) or second fixation portions (13’), a width (W) in a second direction (2D) perpendicular to the first direction (1D), and a length (L) in a third direction (3D) perpendicular to the first direction (1D) and the second direction (3D), wherein the length (L) is greater than the width (W).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the round fixation holes with ones that are elongated, since such a modification is a matter of substituting between one known mounting hole and another known mounting hole to achieve the predictable results of holding components together. Adjustment slots are not new and can be found across all industries.
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fixation holes be elongated holes, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. In re Daily, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
PNG
media_image1.png
271
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Folsom in view of Adam and in further view of Kato and in further view of Lanvermeyer teaches the bearing of claim 1, wherein the second plate is made of an aluminum material (Adam col. 3, lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 3, Folsom in view of Adam and in further view of Kato and in further view of Lanvermeyer teaches the bearing of claim 1 but does not teach a thickness of the first plate is 0.36 mm.
Adam further teaches a thickness of the first plate is 0.36 mm (col. 3, lines 25-26 discloses the thickness of the first plate is between 20 to 400 microns, which is between 0.02 mm to 0.4 mm, so it would include 0.36 mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first plate to be 0.36 mm, 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.
Regarding claim 4, Folsom in view of Adam and in further view of Kato and in further view of Lanvermeyer teaches the bearing of claim 1 but does not disclose a friction coefficient of the contact surface is 0.003 to 0.005.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select and make the contact surface with any coefficient of friction based on the sliding characteristic that are desired in the device, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5, Folsom in view of Adam and in further view of Kato and in further view of Lanvermeyer teaches the bearing of claim 4, wherein the friction coefficient of the contact surface has a value that makes a neutral return angle of the swash plate 0.8 to 1.5 degrees (the friction coefficient of the contact surface is the same as the instant application so it would make a neutral return angle of the swash plate 0.8 to 1.5 degrees).
Regarding claim 11, Folsom in view of Adam and in further view of Kato and in further view of Lanvermeyer teaches (in Kato fig. 3 and Folsom fig. 86 and 88) the bearing of claim 1, wherein the contact portion (Folsom PTFE portion of 410) and the coupling portion (Folsom metal portion of 410) do not have fixation means for being fixed to the support (Folsom 415, as shown in Kato fig. 3, the bolts 81 are going not going through the bearing but through the fixation portions 80 to fix it to the support).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folsom (US 20030166430 A1) in view of Adam (US 6528143 B1) and in further view of Kato (US 20150240637 A1) and in further view of Lanvermeyer (US 2613120 A) and in further view of Heldmann (US 20170146058 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Folsom in view of Adam and in further view of Kato and in further view of Lanvermeyer teaches the bearing of claim 1 but does not teach the first plate has internal cores positioned between the one surface and the remaining surface; and the internal cores are made of a metal material.
Heldmann teaches (in fig. 2A and para. [0028]) the first plate (25 and 27) has internal cores (25) positioned between the one surface and the remaining surface; and the internal cores (25) are made of a metal material, for the purpose of providing elastic deformation to compensate for wear and misalignment in the bearing (para. [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have internal cores in the first plate, as taught by Heldmann, for the purpose of providing elastic deformation to compensate for wear and misalignment in the bearing (para. [0010]). It has also 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.
Regarding claim 7, Folsom in view of Adam and in further view of Kato and in further view of Lanvermeyer and in further view of Heldmann teaches the bearing of claim 6 but does not teach the internal cores are arranged in a mesh form.
Heldmann further teaches the internal cores are arranged in a mesh form (para. [0009]).
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 internal core be in mesh form, as taught by Heldmann, in the bearing of Folsom in view of Adam and in further view of Kato and in further view of Lanvermeyer and in further view of Heldmann, as it is substituting one known internal core type for another for the purpose of achieving the predictable results of better heat conductivity (col. 1, lines 13-23).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folsom (US 20030166430 A1) in view of Adam (US 6528143 B1) and in further view of Heldmann (US 20170146058 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Folsom discloses (in figs. 2, 78 and 86-91) a bearing (410) for supporting a swash plate (408) of a hydraulic static transmission (fig. 2) that is coupled to a support (415) adapted to support a swash plate (408) applied to a hydraulic static transmission (fig. 2) and is provided to reduce friction that occurs between the swash plate (408) and the support (415) when the swash plate (408) rotates, the bearing (410) comprising: a first plate (PTFE portion of 410) provided with a contact surface (surface of PTFE portion of 410) that comes into contact with a swash plate curved surface (curved surface of 408) of the swash plate (408) on one side thereof, and made of a synthetic resin material (para. [0116] discloses a low friction polymer surface PTFE on 410); and a second plate (non PTFE portion of 410) formed in a shape rounded to have a curvature, configured to be superimposed on the first plate (PTFE portion of 410) to come into close contact with a remaining surface of the first plate (PTFE portion of 410) and retain a shape of the first plate (PTFE portion of 410).
Folsom does not disclose the second plate is made of an aluminum material,
Adam teaches a second plate made of a aluminum material (col. 3, lines 22-24 discloses the metallic backing material may be stainless steel, a copper alloy, aluminum or an aluminum alloy) for the purpose of having better heat conductivity (col. 1, lines 19-23).
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 second plate be made out of an aluminum material for the purpose of having better heat conductivity (col. 1, lines 19-23). It has also 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.
Folsom in view of Adam does not teach the first plate has internal cores positioned between the one surface and the remaining surface, wherein the internal cores are made of a steel material.
Heldmann teaches (in fig. 2A and para. [0028]) the first plate (25 and 27) has internal cores (25) positioned between the one surface and the remaining surface; and the internal cores (25) are made of a steel material for the purpose of providing elastic deformation to compensate for wear and misalignment in the bearing (para. [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have internal cores in the first plate, as taught by Heldmann, for the purpose of providing elastic deformation to compensate for wear and misalignment in the bearing (para. [0010]). It has also 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, see pages 6-8, filed 05/18/2026 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.
While the previous rejection does not include elongated holes, Applicant first amendment regarding the fixation holes to be elongated holes with certain dimensions however elongated holes is not new as they are standard adjustment slots that are found throughout different industries.
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
Prosecution Insights