DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 16 March 2026, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-12 are currently presented for examination, of which claims 9-10 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11-12
Claims 1-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter the “AAPA”) in view of United States Patent 9,003,663 to Kelsey et al. (hereinafter “Kelsey”).
Regarding claim 1, the AAPA discloses that rolling elements such as bearings (see instant Specification at page 1, lines 12-13) may suffer surface damage and be subject to shortened service life as a result. The AAPA teaches that bearings may be formed with metal surfaces (Specification at page 2, lines 13-17) which may suffer from damage such as cracks due to fatigue (Specification at page 2, lines 4-5). The AAPA teaches machining the surface (Specification at page 2, lines 13-17) to extend its life. The AAPA further teaches that analytical modelling may be used to estimate stress concentrations and that such modelling may be used to predict performance of the product (Specification at page 2, lines 16-20).
The AAPA does not explicitly disclose obtaining information about the product at a second portion after the machining, and using the information to produce an estimate of potential stress concentrations of the remanufactured surface. However, it is known in the art of bearing repair to measure bearings after repairing them and to estimate the service life after the measuring.
Kelsey discloses a method for prolonging the service life of a product (bearing; 1) having a surface that is subjected to hertzian contact stress when in use (bearings understood to experience hertzian contact stress in use), the surface having at least one indentation (pitting fatigue; see Col. 3, lines 33-41), the method comprising: machining said surface (cutting cycle and burnishing cycle; see Col. 4, lines 55-58) to remove a first portion of said at least one indentation from said metal surface to provide a remanufactured product having a remanufactured surface having a second portion of the at least one indentation (Col. 4, lines 46-54), obtaining information (measuring) about the second portion of the at least one indentation (see Col. 5, lines 4-8 and Col. 6, lines 37-41), using said information (Col. 6, lines 39-41; if not having required smoothness, reprocessed or discarded) to estimate potential stress concentrations that are detrimental to lubrication conditions and/or fatigue life of said remanufactured metal surface using analytical modelling (see Fig. 3; once processed, service life extends), and providing a prediction of the performance of said remanufactured product based on said estimation (see chart in Fig. 3 and Col. 4, lines 9-32). Kelsey teaches that the rate of wear of its bearing unexpectedly reduces its rate of wear more than an initially coated bearing (see Col. 4, lines 18-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by the AAPA to include performing measuring the repaired bearing and estimating service life after the measuring, as taught by Kelsey. (See MPEP 2143(C)). The resulting method would advantageously result in a bearing assembly having improved rates of wear, even compared to a new bearing having the coating or treatment taught by Kelsey.
Thus, the combination of the AAPA and Kelsey teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of the AAPA and Kelsey teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further the AAPA teaches that said metal surface has a mean surface profile (Specification at page 1, lines 26-30), wherein a first one of said at least one indentation has a shoulder extending above said mean surface profile and a crater extending below said mean surface profile (Specification at page 1, lines 26-30). Kelsey teaches that machining said metal surface to remove at least a part of the first one of said at least one indentation comprises at removing at least part of said shoulder but leaving at least part of said crater, such that a remaining part of said crater extends from said mean surface profile (see Col. 4, lines 58-63; previously existing geometry machined within tolerance are understood to still exist).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of the AAPA and Kelsey teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Kelsey teaches that said information about the second portions of the at least one indentation comprises information regarding one or more of the following: a total number of the second portions of the at least one indentation, and a depth, width, maximum width, or cross sectional area of the second portions of the at least one indentation (finished surface is measured; see Col. 5, lines 4-11 understood to measure the entire surface of the bearing).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of the AAPA and Kelsey teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further the AAPA teaches that using said information to estimate potential stress concentrations is based on separation of product surface and subsurface survival (see Specification page 3, lines 22-29; models for separating fatigue risk from survival probability are known in the art).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of the AAPA and Kelsey teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Kelsey teaches including creating documentation (see Fig. 3) comprising said prediction of the performance of said remanufactured product.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of the AAPA and Kelsey teaches the limitations of claim 5, and further Kelsey teaches that the documentation comprises at least one of the following: a paper record, an electronic record, a software record, a database record, or indicia provided on said remanufactured product (plot shown in Fig. 3 is at least maintained as an electronic record within USPTO databases).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of the AAPA and Kelsey teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Kelsey teaches including removing part of the second portion of the at least one indentation if said prediction below a predetermined threshold performance (see Col. 6, lines 39-41; where measurement does not meet desired specifications, additional removal is performed to place smoothness in compliance).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of the AAPA and Kelsey teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Kelsey teaches that removing a first portion of said at least one indentation comprises at least one of the following actions: polishing, buffing, electropolishing, cutting (see Col. 4, lines 55-56), flattening, heat treatment, grinding, and honing.
Regarding claim 11, the AAPA discloses that rolling elements such as bearings (see instant Specification at page 1, lines 12-13) may suffer surface damage and be subject to shortened service life as a result, the damage including craters having a shoulder at an end (Specification at page 1, lines 26-30). The AAPA teaches that bearings may be formed with metal surfaces (Specification at page 2, lines 13-17) which may suffer from damage such as cracks due to fatigue (Specification at page 2, lines 4-5). The AAPA teaches machining the surface (Specification at page 2, lines 13-17) to extend its life. The AAPA further teaches that analytical modelling may be used to estimate stress concentrations and that such modelling may be used to predict performance of the product (Specification at page 2, lines 16-20). The AAPA teaches that it is known in the art to machine the indented surface to remove the crater and shoulders (Specification at page 12-17), producing a flat surface which would be fairly understood to have a reduced depth crater.
The AAPA does not explicitly disclose obtaining information about the product at a second portion after the machining, and using the information to produce an estimate of potential stress concentrations of the remanufactured surface. However, it is known in the art of bearing repair to measure bearings after repairing them and to estimate the service life after the measuring.
Kelsey discloses a method for prolonging the service life of a product (bearing; 1) having a surface that is subjected to hertzian contact stress when in use (bearings understood to experience hertzian contact stress in use), the surface having at least one indentation (pitting fatigue; see Col. 3, lines 33-41). Kelsey teaches machining said surface (cutting cycle and burnishing cycle; see Col. 4, lines 55-58) to remove a first portion of said at least one indentation from said metal surface to provide a remanufactured product having a remanufactured surface having a second portion of the at least one indentation (Col. 4, lines 46-54). Kelsey teaches that machining said metal surface to remove at least a part of the first one of said at least one indentation comprises at removing at least part of said shoulder but leaving at least part of said crater, such that a remaining part of said crater extends from said mean surface profile (see Col. 4, lines 58-63; previously existing geometry machined within tolerance are understood to still exist). Kelsey further teaches obtaining information (measuring) about the second portion of the at least one indentation (see Col. 5, lines 4-8 and Col. 6, lines 37-41), using said information (Col. 6, lines 39-41; if not having required smoothness, reprocessed or discarded) to estimate potential stress concentrations that are detrimental to lubrication conditions and/or fatigue life of said remanufactured metal surface using analytical modelling (see Fig. 3; once processed, service life extends), and providing a prediction of the performance of said remanufactured product based on said estimation (see chart in Fig. 3 and Col. 4, lines 9-32). Kelsey teaches that the rate of wear of its bearing unexpectedly reduces its rate of wear more than an initially coated bearing (see Col. 4, lines 18-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by the AAPA to include performing measuring the repaired bearing and estimating service life after the measuring, as taught by Kelsey. (See MPEP 2143(C)). The resulting method would advantageously result in a bearing assembly having improved rates of wear, even compared to a new bearing having the coating or treatment taught by Kelsey.
Thus, the combination of the AAPA and Kelsey teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of the AAPA and Kelsey teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Kelsey teaches that removing a first portion of said at least one indentation comprises at least one of the following actions: polishing, buffing, electropolishing, cutting (see Col. 4, lines 55-56), heat treatment, grinding, and honing.
Response to Arguments
Specification
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 16 March 2026, with respect to the Objection to the Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection of 16 December 2025 has been withdrawn.
Drawings
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 16 March 2026, with respect to the Objection to the Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection of 16 December 2025 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 16 March 2026, with respect to the Objection to Claims 8 and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection of 16 December 2025 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 16 March 2026, with respect to the Rejection of claims 1-8 and 11-12 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Rejection of 16 December 2025 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1-8 and 11-12 were previously rejected over the combination of the AAPA and Kelsey.
Applicant asserts that the AAPA teaches that bearing components may suffer surface damage and be subject to a shortened service life, and that analytical modelling may be used to estimate stress concentrations. Applicant asserts that Kelsey teaches a method of finishing and coating a worn rolling element of a bearing. Applicant asserts that “nothing about Kelsey suggests to modify [the] AAPA to machine a metal surface to remove a first portion of at least one indentation to provide a remanufactured product having a remanufactured metal surface having a second portion of the at least one indentation.” Applicant notes that Kelsey teaches that the remaining surface has a surface roughness of about 0.40 to 0.75 micrometers, but asserts that such teaching “is merely an acknowledgement that a perfectly/mathematically smooth surface cannot be produced and that the reconditioned surface will still have a roughness after it is reconditioned.” Applicant argues that such surface roughness “does not suggest that any portion of an original indentation remains in Kelsey’s surface after the cutting cycle and the burnishing cycle or that any portion of an original indentation will affect the measured roughness of the rolling element.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that an indentation is an absence of material, not a presence of material. Removal of more material can, to the best of the examiner’s understanding, only expand the absence of material or indentation that already exists. The claims do not specify minimum dimensions of the first indentation, such that the roughness of the machined surface taught by Kelsey are fairly understood to read on the second indentation.
Applicant next argues “even assuming for the sake of argument only that Kelsey’s process fails to remove a portion of at least one indentation, nothing in the record provides a reason to obtain information about the second portion of the at least one indentation.” Applicant further asserts that Kelsey teaches testing a reconditioned rolling element after cutting, burnishing, and coating processes have been performed. Applicant asserts that there is no suggestion “to potentially use a rolling element before the reconditioning process is complete. There is therefore no reason to ‘estimate potential stress concentrations that are detrimental to lubrication conditions and/or fatigue life of a product’ before the disclosed manufacturing process is complete.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kelsey at least fairly teaches obtaining information about the machined surface of the bearing including measuring the surface (see Col. 5, lines 4-8). Such measurement is reasonably understood to include the machined surface of the bearing and thus to include the second indentation. It further appears that Applicant is arguing the performance of the estimation occur prior to the “completion” of a manufacturing process. It is unclear from what limitations in the claim Applicant draws this alleged requirement. The implied sequence of claim 1 is performing machining, then obtaining information, then using the information to produce an estimate, then providing a prediction of performance. There is no implied further machining nor manufacturing step recited in claim 1 following the production of the estimate. There is not understood to be any requirement in the claim “to test a rolling element in the middle of a disclosed reconditioning process” as a result.
Applicant next requests that “[i]f the rejection of claim 1 is maintained, it is respectfully requested that the examiner explain how Kelsey is being interpreted to show a remanufactured product having a second portion of the at least one indentation.”
The examiner believes the instant Office Action provides sufficient clarity.
Applicant asserts that claims 2-8 each depend from claim 1 and are alleged allowable for depending from claim 1.
The rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant alleges that claim 11 includes related limitations to claim 1, and is alleged allowable for the reasons asserted with respect to claim 1.
The rejection of claim 11 is maintained.
Applicant asserts that claim 12 depends from claim 11 and is alleged allowable for depending from claim 11.
The rejection of claim 11 is maintained.
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 DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/D.C.F/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 05/13/2026
Prosecution Insights