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
Figure 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old or “conventional” is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The description of figure 4 should appear in the background as this is describing a device that is not Applicant’s invention but rather “conventional” or “comparative” as referenced in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 3-10, is grammatically awkward and difficult to follow, which could cause confusion. The claim should be drafted by first defining a component and all its features and then introduce the next component and only after all the components have been completely introduced should the claim define interactions or other features between the parts themselves. For example the claim should define - -a base material in a tubular shape having an inner peripheral surface facing a surface of a shaft member accommodated in the tubular shape- - then the claim can state - -a resin layer joined to the inner peripheral surface of the base material, the resin layer including a plurality of grooves…- -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear if the listing in the claim is including or excluding the alternative language of “at least one” recited in claim 2 and thus the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claim 2 defines the additive as “at least one of graphite and clay” which allows for three possibilities, just graphite, just clay or a combination of both. Claim 3 however then lists three features in the format of A, B “AND” C, which would appear to require all three options to be present, A being a graphite and B being a clay. Is claim 3 excluding the alternative language of claim 2 and positively requiring both graphite and clay to be present or are graphite and clay still meant to be read as alternatives? Based on the disclosure the invention is actually a combination of all three of these features and making sure a relationship between the grooves and all additives meets the ranges recited in the claim and the claim will be treated as such for the purpose of examination and therefore the claim is being interpreted as requiring all three features recited in claim 3 to be present.
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) 1, 2, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, JP2021-084962 (see alternate publication US PGPub 2022/0403879 for any line citations below), in view of Kawagoe, US PGPub 2006/0083451.
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a bearing (figure 3) comprising: a base material (12) in a tubular shape (see figure 3); and a resin layer (14) joined to an inner peripheral surface of the base material, provided with, on a surface on a facing surface facing a shaft member (30) accommodated to be opposed to the inner peripheral surface of the base material, and containing a synthetic resin (18) and an additive (20, 22 or 24) dispersed in the synthetic resin (18), and wherein the particle size ranges from 0.1-5µm (paragraph 0045).
Kobayashi does not disclose a plurality of grooves running along a direction intersecting an extending direction of the shaft member and wherein an average particle size of the additive is less than a depth of the plurality of grooves.
Kawagoe teaches a bearing member with a resin overlay that includes grooves (4) that run in a direction that would intersect an extending direction (longitudinal direction) of a shaft member supported by the bearing (see figures 4a and 4b, when placed around a shaft these grooves would all extend at an angle relative to the axis of the shaft, the claim does not require any particular type of intersection) and wherein the groove depth is 2 µm for the purpose of providing a bearing configuration where lubricant can be easily disturbed and moved through the system so that a temperature rise can be alleviated and provide excellent seizure resistance (paragraph 0018).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Kobayashi and had a plurality of grooves that intersect the extending direction of the shaft and have a depth of 2 µm, as taught by Kawagoe, for the purpose of providing a bearing configuration where lubricant can be easily disturbed and moved through the system so that a temperature rise can be alleviated and provide excellent seizure resistance. As a result of the combination a bearing which has additive particle sizes less that the depth of the groove is rendered obvious as the particles can have a value as low as 0.1 µm (Kobayashi) while the groove depth is 2 µm (Kawagoe).
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi discloses that the additive includes at least one of graphite and clay (20 is graphite, see at least paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi discloses that the synthetic resin contains PTFE particles (22 is PTFE, see paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi in view of Kawagoe discloses a compressor comprising the bearing according to claim 1 (Kobayashi discloses that the bearing disclosed there in is used in compressors, see paragraph 0067).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: First, it is noted that this indication of allowable subject matter is made based on the assumption that the intent is for the claim to positively require all three clauses listed, see rejection under 35 USC 112 above. The prior art, while further disclosing clay (24 in Kobayashi), does not disclose the specific ranges for all three parameters recited in claim 3. Specifically the prior art of record does not disclose graphite in an average particle size range of equal to or more than 1 µm and less than 4 µm, clay in an average particle size range of equal to or more than 2 µm and less than 3.5 µm, and a groove that that is equal to or more than 4 µm and equal to or less than 7 µm. In other words, all particles have an average size less than the minimum depth of the groove which is disclosed as one of the critical combination features of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES PILKINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-5052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7-3.
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.
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
