Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/043,583

BEARING PART

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 29, 2020
Examiner
YANG, JIE
Art Unit
1734
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ntn Corporation
OA Round
6 (Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
758 granted / 1223 resolved
-3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
73 currently pending
Career history
1296
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
51.3%
+11.3% vs TC avg
§102
13.0%
-27.0% vs TC avg
§112
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1223 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claim 2 has been canceled; Claims 3-7 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected claims, Claims 1 and 8-9 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim. There is no amendment since last office action dated 08/14/2025. Information Disclosure Statement IDS filed on 11/21/2025 and IDS filed on 9/11/2025 have been recorded. 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 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) 1 is/are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kino Nobuo et al (JP 2001330101 A, listed in IDS field on 9/29/2020. with on-line translation, Thereafter JP’101) in view of Ohki (US-PG-pub 2003/0123769 A1, thereafter PG’769) evidenced by Celada-Casero et al (The role of the austenite grain size in the martensite transformation in low carbon steel, Materials and Design, 167 (2019) 107625, pp.1-10, thereafter NPL-1). JP’101 in view of PG’769 evidenced by NPL-1 is applied to the instant Claim 1 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 8/14/2025. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’101 in view of PG’769 evidenced by NPL-1, and further in view of Niitsu et al (JP 4114218 B2, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’218). JP’101 in view of PG’769 evidenced by NPL-1 and further in view of JP’218 is applied to the instant Claims 8-9 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 8/14/2025. Claim(s) 1 is/are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’101 in view of Miyamoto et al (US-PG-pub 2017/0121786 A1, listed in IDS filed on 7/7/2025, thereafter PG’786). JP’101 in view of PG’786 is applied to the instant Claim 1 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 8/14/2025. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’101 in view of PG’786, and further in view of Niitsu et al (JP 4114218 B2, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’218). JP’101 in view of PG’786 and further in view of JP’218 is applied to the instant Claims 8-9 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 8/14/2025. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1 and 8-9 have been considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments are summarized as following: There are different definition between the cited prior art(s) and the instant invention. As set forth in paragraph [0021] of the present application, a martensite crystal grain is determined by a crystal orientation deviation of at least 15° between adjacent grains. As such, the Examiner identifies the grain size of the austenite grain with the grain size of the martensite crystal grain. However, the martensite crystal grain is a so-called martensite block, as is clear from paragraph [0021] of the present application. In response, Regarding the arguments, the specific definition: “a martensite crystal grain is determined by a crystal orientation deviation of at least 15° between adjacent grains“ as argued is not really included in the instant claims limitation. As discussed in the rejections for the instant claims, the cited prior art(s) indicates the grain size of the martensite, which reads on the claimed limitations. Conclusion 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 extension fee 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 JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP. 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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 29, 2020
Application Filed
Sep 29, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 23, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 25, 2024
Response Filed
Jun 01, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 02, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 05, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 22, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 24, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 16, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 21, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 25, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 25, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 28, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
May 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 14, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603200
RARE EARTH SINTERED MAGNET, METHOD FOR PRODUCING RARE EARTH SINTERED MAGNET, ROTOR, AND ROTARY MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595533
IMPROVED METHOD FOR RECYCLING ZINC (ZN)
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592329
R-T-B-BASED PERMANENT MAGNET MATERIAL, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584187
METHOD FOR REMOVING PHOSPHORUS FROM PHOSPHORUS-CONTAINING SUBSTANCE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING RAW MATERIAL FOR METAL SMELTING OR RAW MATERIAL FOR METAL REFINING, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING METAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584203
STEEL SHEET FOR NON-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+19.4%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1223 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month