DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to applicant's amendment received on 11/19/2025. Amended claims 11-12 and 15-17 are acknowledged and the following grounds of rejection below are maintained. Claims
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12129893. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they all recite similar limitations.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer is improper since the applicant cited must be as exactly cited on the ADS and or filing receipt and also in its entirety. Correction and resubmission is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9, and 11-14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto (U.S. Publication 2022/0018387), hereinafter “Goto”.
Regarding claim 1, Goto discloses a bearing (shown in figure 4), comprising; a first half shell (41a) and an eccentric second half shell (42a), in which the first half shell and the second half shell shells are configured to connect at a joint (51 and 61) to form a cylindrical bearing (shown in figure 1); the first half shell (41a) having a first crown thickness (T1) at a first crown (at P1) of the first half shell, and a first wall thickness (thickness at Q1) between the first crown and the joint (shown in figure 1); and the second half shell (42a) having a second crown thickness (T2) at a second crown (at P2) of the second half shell, and a second wall thickness (thickness at Q2) between the second crown and the joint; in which wherein the second crown thickness (T2) is greater than the first crown thickness (T1), and in which the first wall thickness (at Q1) is equal to the second wall thickness (at Q2) at a point of equal thickness between 10 and 60 degrees from the joint (within 10 and 60 degrees there are points of equal thicknesses between 41a and 42a). Claim does not state that from the joint thicknesses have to be the same throughout the degrees but only at a point.
Regarding claim 2, Goto discloses the bearing according to claim 1, in which wherein the first wall thickness is equal to the second wall thickness at a point of equal thickness greater than 15 degrees and/or less than 45 degrees from the joint (shown in figure 1). There are points of equal thickness between 41a and 42a between 15 and 45 degrees.
Regarding claim 3, Goto discloses the bearing according to claim 1, in which wherein the first wall thickness is equal to the second wall thickness at a point of equal thickness at an angular distance of 25 degrees from the joint (shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Goto discloses the bearing according to claim 1, wherein the second half shell (42a) has a second eccentricity defined by the second crown thickness (T2) minus the second wall thickness (thickness at Q2) at an eccentricity point (shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Goto discloses the bearing according to claim 1, wherein the first half shell (41a) is an eccentric half shell and has a first eccentricity defined by the first crown thickness (T1) minus the first wall thickness (thickness at Q1) at an eccentricity point, preferably in which the eccentricity point is an angular distance of 25 degrees from the joint (shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Goto disclose the bearing according to claim 7, wherein a second eccentricity of the second half shell defined by the second crown thickness minus the second wall thickness is greater than the first eccentricity (shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Goto discloses the bearing according to claim 2, wherein the first half shell (42b) is configured to be a loaded half shell, and second half shell (41b) is configured to be an unloaded half shell. Examiner notes that paragraph 42 mentions that the intermediate bearings have a flipped configuration to figure 4 in which the thicker bearing is the lower bearing.
Regarding claim 12, Goto discloses the bearing according to claim 2, wherein the bearing is a connecting rod big-end bearing for a reciprocating engine, preferably in which the first half shell (42a) is a rod side connecting rod big end bearing, and in which the second half shell (41a) is a cap-side (33) connecting rod big-end bearing (shown in figure 3).
Regarding claim 13, Goto discloses the bearing according to claim 1, wherein the bearing is a main bearing for a reciprocating engine (paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 14, Goto discloses a method of manufacturing a bearing, comprising the steps of: forming a first half shell having a first crown thickness at a first crown and a first wall thickness between the first crown and a joint face; and forming a second half shell having a second crown thickness at a second crown and a second wall thickness between the second crown and a joint face; wherein the second crown thickness is greater than the first crown thickness, and the first wall thickness is equal to the second wall thickness at a point of equal thickness between 10 and 60 degrees from the joint faces. Refer to the rejections of claim 1 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 18, Goto discloses method the bearing according to claim 5, wherein the eccentricity point is an angular distance of 25 degrees from the joint. Refer to the rejections of claim 3 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 19, Goto discloses method the bearing, comprising: a first half shell and an eccentric second half shell, the first half shell and the second half shell configured to connect at a joint to form a cylindrical bearing; the first half shell having a first crown thickness at a first crown of the first half shell, and a first wall thickness between the first crown and the joint; and the second half shell having a second crown thickness at a second crown of the second half shell, and a second wall thickness between the second crown and the joint; wherein the second crown thickness is greater than the first crown thickness, and the first wall thickness is equal to the second wall thickness at a point of equal thickness between 10 and 60 degrees from the joint; and wherein the first half shell is configured to be a loaded half shell, and second half shell is configured to be an unloaded half shell. Refer to the rejections of claims 1 and 11 for further details since the limitations are similar.
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) 4-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto.
Regarding claim 4, Goto discloses the claimed invention but is silent to disclose the second crown thickness being at least 6 µm greater than the first crown thickness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to provide such a range, 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 claims 6 and 8, Goto discloses the claimed invention but is silent to disclose the second eccentricity being between 10 µm and 35 µm and the first eccentricity being between 1 µm and 10 µm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to provide such ranges, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Goto does not disclose having different eccentricities for the half shells, in which the first half shell is provided with a lower eccentricity which reduces POFP in the bearing, while the second half shell retains a higher eccentricity which reduces contact severity and seizure risks at high engine speed. However, these limitations were not provided within the claims. Applicant argues that Goto does not teach “and the first wall thickness is equal to the second wall thickness at a point of equal thickness between 10 and 60 degrees from the joint”. However, examiner will explain in more detail with the example given below to read on the broad limitation in accordance to the previous rejection. Goto’s upper half shell or second half shell has a thickness between 10 to 60 degrees and the specific thickness at 10 degrees is value X. Since Goto’s lower half shell or first half shell is shown as being thinner than the upper half shell, there is a value Y at a point between 10 and 60 degrees of the lower half shell in which the thickness Y equals thickness X within this 10 to 60 degree range. As an example the thickness Y of the lower half shell at 25 degrees may be equal to thickness X of the upper half shell at 10 degrees. Therefore, examiner can choose a point of thickness within 10 to 60 degrees of the lower half shell to match the thickness of any point within the thickness of the upper shell since claims do not state otherwise. Claims should recite and make it clear that the thickness between the first half shell and the second half shell are the same throughout the entirety of 10 to 60 degrees for both the shells.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 15-17, and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art teaches all the limitations of claims 10 and 20, but more specifically, the first and second half shells having uniform thickness throughout a distance of 140 degrees from the joints and the rest of the 40 degrees having different thicknesses from each other in which the lower bearing is thicker. Examiner notes that this is allowable with an additional amendment that states the bearing is for a connecting rod big end. It provides a burdensome search for the examiner to search ALL existing bearings for all arts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SYED O HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 11AM-7PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/SYED O HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747 2/27/2026