DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 05/02/2025, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-17 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims priority to provisional application 63/642,008, filed on 05/03/2024. The priority is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim has now added “two specific tunable features”. However, this has not been added to the claim, the claim still states, “the plurality of tunable parameters is at least one of…” not “at least two of…”. The claims now include a second band, however, Feng also discloses a second band {see Fig. 2}.
Applicant argues that Feng teaches an anti-rotation bushing, not a bearing”. However, all bushings are a form of bearing. Therefore, Feng discloses a bearing.
Applicant argues that Feng does not disclose the claimed geometry. This is true, however, Feng does not need to disclose the claimed geometry, because the claim says, “at least one of…”, and the geometry is just one of 5 options that follows. If the two bands having different geometries was a required limitation of the claim, the claim would then traverse the current rejection.
Therefore, the rejection of Feng in view of Zeid is maintained.
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (US 2023/0213064) in view of Zeid (US 7,862,056).
Regarding claim 17, Feng discloses a bearing assembly {50} for a first expansion compensating band {64} and a second expansion compensating band {64 (Fig. 2)} comprising a material, a thickness, a width, and a spacing between the first expansion compensating band {64} and the second expansion compensating band {64 (Fig. 2)}; and securing the first expansion compensating band {64} and the second expansion compensating band {64} to an outer race {60} of a bearing {50}.
Zeid teaches “A tunable mass damper for use in a vehicle steering system in which a rack and pinion gearing subsystem would otherwise transfer resonant vibrations to the vehicle steering wheel. The mass damper element is a generally cylindrical mass supported and suspended around the shaft extending from the pinion gear by several cantilevered spring elements. The mass damper is tunable by modifying the size of the mass or the size or material or length” (Abstract); and that “efforts… have focused on designing and tuning the elastomeric bushings, bearings, and joints used throughout the steering and suspension systems to achieve a desired level of vibration damping” {Col. 1, lines 25-28}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Feng, to provide a method of customizing the radial stiffness and/or torsional stiffness of a bearing assembly comprising: selecting from a plurality of tunable parameters for an expansion compensating band, wherein the plurality of tunable parameters is at least one of a material, a thickness, a width, or a spacing (which would be effected by size changes), as taught by Zeid, in order to “achieve a desired level of vibration damping” {Col. 1, line 28}, since modifying the mass, size, material or length of the band would inherently change the band’s radial /or torsional stiffness. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to choose a material, width, thickness, and spacing that works within the given assembly, and it would have been obvious to choose a material, width, thickness, and spacing that fits within the given assembly. Lastly, customizing the radial stiffness and torsional stiffness is intended use, and any change in the material and size of the band would result in different radial and torsional stiffness. In reality, the claim only has two steps: picking a band (of a given material and size and shape) and then fitting it on a bearing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the invention of claim 17 in view of Feng and Zeid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel M Keck whose telephone number is (571)272-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571)270-5985. 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.
/Daniel M. Keck/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights