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 .
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.
Claims 1 -3, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura et al. (U.S. PG Pub # 20200182299).
Regarding Claim 1, Kimura discloses sliding components of which a pair of sliding surfaces rotate relative to each other (surfaces of 4 and 7, fig 1) and which partition a sealed fluid space and a leakage space off from each other (4 and 7 seals between 2 and 5),
wherein at least one of the sliding surfaces is provided with a dynamic pressure generation groove (11, fig 5 same as fig 1), a fluid recovery groove (36, fig 5 and Para 0061) provided on a leakage space side with respect to the dynamic pressure generation groove (36 on a radial outer side, fig 5) and including at least one pressure generation portion that is a circumferential end portion, a curved portion, or a bent portion ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 5 below), and a circumferential groove ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 5 below) provided between the dynamic pressure generation groove and the fluid recovery groove in a radial direction and extending in a circumferential direction ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
791
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Kimura discloses the sliding components wherein the fluid recovery groove includes a first groove portion ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 5 below) configured to extend in the circumferential direction ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 5 below), and a second groove portion ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 5 below) curved or bent from the first groove portion ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 5 below) and configured to extend toward the circumferential groove ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 5 below), and the pressure generation portion is a bent portion between the first groove portion and the second groove portion ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 5 below).
Regarding Claim 3, Kimura discloses the sliding components wherein the circumferential groove has an annular shape ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 5 below).
Regarding Claim 5, Kimura discloses the sliding components wherein one of the sliding surfaces is further provided with a communication groove (12, fig 5) that causes the circumferential groove and the sealed fluid space to communicate with each other (12 communicates with 13 and sealed fluid space in the radial inner direction).
Regarding Claim 8, Kimura discloses the sliding components wherein the adjacent first groove portions are aligned in one circle line shape ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 5 below).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Itadani et al. (U.S. PG Pub # 20160033045).
Regarding Claim 4, Kimura discloses the sliding components.
Kimura does not disclose wherein the fluid recovery groove communicates with the circumferential groove.
However, Itadani teaches wherein the fluid recovery groove communicates with the circumferential groove (10 communicates with 11, fig 2a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the fluid recovery grooves of Itadani with those of Kimura with a reasonable expectation of success so that the fluid recovery grooves communicate with the circumferential groove and act as pumping grooves to the sliding surface (Itadani Para 0063).
Regarding Claim 11, Kimura discloses the sliding components.
Kimura does not disclose wherein the circumferential groove is deeper than the fluid recovery groove.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the thickness limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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, to provide sufficient lubrication depending on the application. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Tokunaga et al. (U.S. PG Pub # 20180073394).
Regarding Claim 7, Kimura discloses the sliding components.
Kimura does not disclose an upstream end of the first groove portion of the fluid recovery groove and the bent portion of the adjacent fluid recovery groove on an upstream side in the relative rotation overlap each other in the circumferential direction.
However, Tokunaga teaches an upstream end of the first groove portion of the fluid recovery groove and the bent portion of the adjacent fluid recovery groove on an upstream side in the relative rotation overlap each other in the circumferential direction (upstream end of the first groove portion 15a, fig 6) of the fluid recovery groove (15, fig 6) and the bent portion (10, fig 6) of the adjacent fluid recovery groove (10 of adjacent 15, fig 6) on an upstream side in the relative rotation overlap each other in the circumferential direction(15 and adjacent 15 overlap each other, fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the fluid recovery grooves of Tokunaga with those of Kimura with a reasonable expectation of success so that the fluid recovery grooves increase a liquid film between the sliding faces at low speeds, improving lubrication performance at low speeds (Tokunaga Para 0122).
Claims 6, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura alone.
Regarding Claim 6, Kimura discloses the sliding components.
Kimura does not disclose wherein the circumferential groove is deeper than the fluid recovery groove.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the thickness limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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, to provide sufficient lubrication depending on the application. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 9, Kimura discloses the sliding components.
Kimura does not disclose wherein the circumferential groove is deeper than the fluid recovery groove.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the thickness limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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, to provide sufficient lubrication depending on the application. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 10, Kimura discloses the sliding components.
Kimura does not disclose wherein the circumferential groove is deeper than the fluid recovery groove.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the thickness limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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, to provide sufficient lubrication depending on the application. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 12, Kimura discloses the sliding components.
Kimura does not disclose wherein the circumferential groove is deeper than the fluid recovery groove.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the thickness limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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, to provide sufficient lubrication depending on the application. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
791
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to L. Susmitha Koneru whose telephone number is 571.270.5333. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Mills can be reached on 571.272.8322. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/L. SUSMITHA KONERU/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights