Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 17/988,952

CARRY BOX WITH INTEGRATED INDUCTION HEATER FOR ANNULAR BEARING COMPONENT COMPRISING A TOP BOX

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 17, 2022
Priority
Dec 13, 2021 — DE 102021214235.4
Examiner
DANG, KET D
Art Unit
3761
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Aktiebolaget SKF
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allowance Rate
424 granted / 689 resolved
-8.5% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+37.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
707
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
51.4%
+11.4% vs TC avg
§102
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
§112
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 689 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/09/2026 has been entered. This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 09/09/2026. As directed by the amendment: no claims have been amended, no claims have been withdrawn, no claims have been cancelled, and new claims 11-17 have been added. Thus, claims 1-17 are presently under consideration in this application. Claim Interpretation The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an annular bearing component” in claims 1, 10, and 11. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Paragraph [0002] discloses the present invention generally relates to the heating of annular bearing components. An annular bearing component relates to a bearing provided with rolling elements, typically balls or rollers, arranged between an inner bearing ring and an outer bearing ring. An annular bearing component can also relate to a plain bearing without rolling elements. An annular bearing component can further relate to a single ring, for example an inner bearing ring or an outer bearing ring. In particular, the invention concerns heating annular bearing components with an induction heater. Paragraph [0004] discloses a bearing induction heater heats the annular bearing component until a desired measured temperature of the annular bearing component is reached or until a predefine heating time is reached. Paragraph [0012] discloses a heater body comprising an induction heater, a top surface to place an annular bearing component, and an inductor comprising two rods protruding outwardly with respect to the top surface. Paragraph [0030] discloses the heater body 2 also comprises an inductor 12 in order to generate the heating with the induction heater in an annular bearing component when the annular bearing component is placed around a portion of the inductor 12. The inductor 12 comprises two rods 14 protruding outwardly from the top surface 6. The two rods 14 are parallel to each other and orthogonal to the top surface 6. The inductor 12 may be realized in electrical steel. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 11, recites the limitation "a first pocket" at line 14 in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “a first pocket” and “at least one pocket” at line 14 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (a first pocket). The dependent claims 12-17 are rejected for their inherited deficiencies on rejected independent claim 11. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-10 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: As indicated allowable subject matter from previous Office Action, the closest prior art of record is Meisner et al., the prior art of record references neither discloses, or suggests, in combination with the other limitations of independent claim 1, “the bottom tray being removably attached to the heater body and being destined to cover the top surface of the heater body in the attached position, the bottom tray being provided with at least one pocket, the pocket being closed by the closing lid, wherein the top box is completely detachable and re-attachable from the heater body,” Furthermore, Applicant argues with respect to Bessey’s non-patent documents on the Remarks/Arguments has been reviewed and persuasive. Independent claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The dependent claims 12-17 are allowable for at least their dependence on independent claim 11. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM. 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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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. /KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 17, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Feb 06, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 08, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jun 12, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 09, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 14, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12747818
Offshore Renewable Energy Subsea Heat Bank
3y 9m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12734609
JOINING APPARATUS
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12716539
Subsea Flowline Blockage Remediation Using External Heating Device
4y 8m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12685407
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HEATING FOOD
4y 5m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12672732
BEVERAGE MACHINE CARRIABLE SINGLE-HANDED
4y 0m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+37.9%)
4y 0m (~2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 689 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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