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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “axial bearing”, “cam and cam follower” and “roller ball assembly” of claim 68, the “conical or linear bearing” of claim 69, the “system” of claim 72 and the “rocket, missile, motor, or turbine engine” of claim 86 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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.
Claims 65, 67, 72 and 86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claim 65 and 67 recites “substantially similar to”. The term “substantially similar” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially similar” 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. It is unclear how close the values of thermal expansion must be to be considered “substantially similar”.
Claim 72 recites “incorporating the bearing assembly into a system”. The scope of claim 57 is the method of making a bearing. Thus, the limitation “incorporating the bearing assembly into a system” is outside the scope of “making a bearing”. Applicant is attempting to define the process of making a bearing by defining the environment in which the bearing will eventually operate. Since the scope of the claim is not directed to a making of a system, nor is it directed to a method of using a system or a bearing, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. Claim 86 has the same issue.
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.
Claims 57 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miess U.S. 2020/0032841.
Re clm 57, Miess discloses a method of making bearings, the method comprising: providing a polycrystalline diamond element (201) having a diamond bearing surface (213); providing an opposing bearing element (203) having a metal bearing surface (215; [0042]), wherein the metal bearing surface comprises a metal that is ductile at a temperature of -150° C (at least tantalum, nickel, rhodium and copper are ductile at the required temperature), wherein the metal contains at least 2 weight percent of a diamond solvent-catalyst (iron is the main component of ferrous alloys; tantalum, nickel, rhodium and copper are ductile at the required temperature) based on a total weight of the metal; and forming a bearing assembly (Fig. 2A-6), including coupling the polycrystalline diamond element with the opposing bearing element such that the metal bearing surface is in contact with the diamond bearing surface (col. 6: lines 9-11).
The limitation “for cryogenic applications” is outside the scope of the “method of making” and is therefore given little or no patentable weight.
Re clm 70, Miess further discloses forming the bearing assembly comprises forming a journal bearing (Fig. 2A and 2B).
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.
Claims 57, 61-64, 68, 72 and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miess U.S. 10,465,775 in view of the Selection of Stainless Steels for Cryogenic Applications website.
Re clm 57, Miess discloses a method of making bearings, the method comprising: providing a polycrystalline diamond element (102, Fig. 1; col. 4: lines 33-38) having a diamond bearing surface; providing an opposing bearing element (216, Fig. 2) having a metal bearing surface (211; ferrous alloys, col. 6: lines 9-45), wherein the metal contains at least 2 weight percent of a diamond solvent-catalyst (iron is the main component of ferrous alloys; claim 9) based on a total weight of the metal; and forming a bearing assembly (Fig. 2A-6), including coupling the polycrystalline diamond element with the opposing bearing element such that the metal bearing surface is in contact with the diamond bearing surface (col. 6: lines 9-11).
Although Miess discloses the use of the bearing in vacuum aerospace environments, Miess does not explicitly state the bearing is for cryogenic applications, wherein the metal bearing surface comprises a metal that is ductile at a temperature of -150 °C.
The Selection of Stainless Steels for Cryogenic Applications website teaches austenitic stainless steels are cryogenic steels (low temperature) in which the metal is ductile at a temperature of -150° C (304LN is suitable for very low temperatures at -269° C) for the purpose of providing steels that are usable in very low temperature applications, such as the vacuum of deep space.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the generic “iron alloy” of Miess with the specific iron alloy of austenitic stainless steel such as 304LN for the purpose of providing a metal that meets the specifications of Miess while also providing a metal that is usable in low temperature applications. The examiner further notes that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
The examiner notes that the limitation “for cryogenic applications” is provided by the rejection above, however the limitation is outside the scope of “making bearings”.
Re clm 61, Miess further discloses providing the polycrystalline diamond bearing element comprises identifying a polish level for the diamond bearing surface (claim 4: 0.5 µin to 10 µin), and polishing (col. 4: lines 61-62) the diamond bearing surface to provide the identified polish level.
Re clm 62, Miess further discloses the diamond bearing surfaced is polished to have a surface roughness of 20 pin Ra or less (claim 4).
Re clm 63, Miess further discloses the metal bearing surface is positioned in sliding contact with the diamond bearing surface (col. 6: lines 5-8).
Re clm 64, Miess further discloses leaching and backfilling the polycrystalline diamond bearing element (col. 8: lines 1-4).
Re clm 68, Miess further discloses forming the bearing assembly comprises forming a cam and cam follower assembly (Fig. 2).
Re clm 72,Miess further discloses incorporating the bearing assembly into a system (mechanisms; col. 1: lines 37-47 and col. 8: lines 56-67).
Re clm 87¸ the improvement of the Selection of Stainless Steels for Cryogenic Applications website discloses the metal has a hardness value of less than 15 GPa as determined in accordance with ASTM E92-17 (hardness of 304 stainless steel is around 2 GPa).
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miess U.S. 10,465,775 in view of the Selection of Stainless Steels for Cryogenic Applications website as applied to claim 64 above, and further in view of Scott U.S. 2017/0029338.
Miess in view of the Selection of Stainless Steels for Cryogenic Applications website discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 65¸ Miess does not disclose the polycrystalline diamond bearing is backfilled with a material having a coefficient of thermal expansion that is at least substantially similar to a coefficient of thermal expansion of polycrystalline diamond.
Scott teaches backfilling a polycrystalline diamond with silicone carbide ([0048]) for the purpose of improving thermal properties of the polycrystalline material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Miess and provide the polycrystalline diamond bearing is backfilled with a material having a coefficient of thermal expansion that is at least substantially similar to a coefficient of thermal expansion of polycrystalline diamond for the purpose of improving thermal properties of the polycrystalline material.
Claim 66 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miess U.S. 10,465,775 in view of the Selection of Stainless Steels for Cryogenic Applications website as applied to claim 64 above, and further in view of Yu 2014/0110180.
Miess in view of the Selection of Stainless Steels for Cryogenic Applications website discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 66, Miess does not disclose the polycrystalline diamond bearing element comprises a thermally stable polycrystalline diamond sintered with a ceramic binder.
Yu teaches a polycrystalline diamond material including a thermally stable polycrystalline diamond sintered with a ceramic binder (silicon carbide).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the polycrystalline diamond of Miess with the thermally stable polycrystalline diamond sintered with a ceramic binder of Yu, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Re clm 67, the improvement of Yu further discloses the ceramic binder has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is at least substantially similar to a coefficient of thermal expansion of polycrystalline diamond (coefficients of silicon carbide and polycrystalline diamond are substantially similar).
Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miess U.S. 10,465,775 in view of the Selection of Stainless Steels for Cryogenic Applications website as applied to claim 57 above, and further in view of Prevost U.S. 2020/0056659.
Miess in view of the Selection of Stainless Steels for Cryogenic Applications website discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 71, Miess does not disclose the opposing bearing element is cryogenically treated.
Prevost ‘659 teaches cryogenic treatments for the diamond bearing element and the opposing bearing element ([0233]) for the purpose of hardening the surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Miess and provide the opposing bearing element is cryogenically treated for the purpose of hardening the surfaces.
Claims 57, 68-69 and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson U.S. 2014/0169718 in view of Gasparini: Metals and Materials for Low Temperature and Cryogenic Applications.
Re clm 57, Peterson discloses a method of making bearings, the method comprising: providing a polycrystalline diamond element (110 and 122; [0032] and [0037]) having a diamond bearing surface (surface of 110/122 that contacts rollers 128); providing an opposing bearing element (rollers 128) having a metal bearing surface (metallic materials such as steel; [0032]), wherein the metal contains at least 2 weight percent of a diamond solvent-catalyst (steel has over 2% iron) based on a total weight of the metal; and forming a bearing assembly (Fig. 2B or Fig. 4), including coupling the polycrystalline diamond element with the opposing bearing element such that the metal bearing surface is in contact with the diamond bearing surface (as shown in the figures).
Peterson does not explicitly state the bearing is for cryogenic applications, wherein the metal bearing surface comprises a metal that is ductile at a temperature of -150 °C.
The Gasparini website teaches various metals which are ductile at a temperature of -150 °C (austenitic stainless steels of the 300 series; maraging steels; nickel alloys Monel, K-Monel, Inconel X, Inconel 718, Rene 41 and Hastelloy B; titanium alloys Ti45A, 5Al-2.5Sn-Ti, Tal-4V-Ti and 8Al-2Cb-1Ta-TiY; Page 5 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the steel of Peterson with the specific iron alloy of
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the generic alloys of steel, nickel and titanium, etc. of Peterson with the specific low temperature alloys of steel, nickel and titanium, etc. of Gasparini, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07. Furthermore, providing the bearing with the modification of Gasparini would allow the bearing to be used in a wider range of environments, including cryogenic applications.
The examiner notes that the limitation “for cryogenic applications” is provided by the rejection above, however the limitation is outside the scope of “making bearings”.
Re clm 68, Peterson further discloses forming the bearing assembly comprises forming a radial bearing (Fig. 1A and 1B), an axial bearing (Fig. 7), or a roller ball assembly (Fig. 2B).
Re clm 69, Peterson further discloses forming the bearing assembly comprises forming a conical bearing (Fig. 4).
Re clm 72, Peterson further discloses comprising incorporating the bearing assembly into a system ([0070]).
Claim 86 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson U.S. 2014/0169718 in view of Gasparini: Metals and Materials for Low Temperature and Cryogenic Applications as applied to claim 72 above, and further in view of Habibvand U.S. 2011/0129327.
Peterson in view of Gasparini: Metals and Materials for Low Temperature and Cryogenic Applications discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Assuming the system in which the bearing is used is not outside the scope of “making a bearing”:
Re clm 86, although Peterson discloses bearings used in a variety of systems ([0004] and [0070]), Peterson does not disclose the system is a rocket, a missile, a motor, or a turbine engine that operates on cryogenic fuel.
Habibvand teaches a rolling bearing for use in a rocket that operates on cryogenic fuel (liquid hydrogen; [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the rolling bearing of Peterson into any well-known rolling bearing environment/application, including the rocket of Habibvand and provide the rolling bearing in a rocket that operates on cryogenic fuel to achieve the predictable result of rotationally supporting elements relative to each other.
Claims 57 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miess 2020/0032841 in view of the Selection of Stainless Steels for Cryogenic Applications website.
Assuming Miess does not disclose the requisite ductility:
Re clm 57, Miess discloses a method of making bearings, the method comprising: providing a polycrystalline diamond element (201) having a diamond bearing surface (213); providing an opposing bearing element (203) having a metal bearing surface (215; [0042]), wherein the metal contains at least 2 weight percent of a diamond solvent-catalyst (iron is the main component of ferrous alloys; tantalum, nickel, rhodium and copper are ductile at the required temperature) based on a total weight of the metal; and forming a bearing assembly (Fig. 2A-6), including coupling the polycrystalline diamond element with the opposing bearing element such that the metal bearing surface is in contact with the diamond bearing surface (col. 6: lines 9-11).
Although Miess discloses the use of the bearing in various harsh environments, Miess does not explicitly state the bearing is for cryogenic applications, wherein the metal bearing surface comprises a metal that is ductile at a temperature of -150 °C.
The Selection of Stainless Steels for Cryogenic Applications website teaches austenitic stainless steels are cryogenic steels (low temperature) in which the metal is ductile at a temperature of -150° C (304LN is suitable for very low temperatures at -269° C) for the purpose of providing steels that are usable in very low temperature applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the opposing engagement surface of Miess with the specific iron alloy of austenitic stainless steel such as 304LN for the purpose of providing a metal that meets the specifications of Miess while also providing a metal that is usable in low temperature applications, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Re clm 70, Miess further discloses forming the bearing assembly comprises forming a journal bearing (Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 58-60 and 88-89 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN B WAITS whose telephone number is (571)270-3664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6-4 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 R 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.
/ALAN B WAITS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights