Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/510,892

AXIAL ROLLER BEARING ASSEMBLY

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Nov 16, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, AIMEE TRAN
Art Unit
3617
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Volvo Truck Corporation
OA Round
4 (Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
115 granted / 142 resolved
+29.0% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
177
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
40.6%
+0.6% vs TC avg
§102
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
§112
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 142 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 . 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 1-4, 7, 9, and 11-12 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. In claim 1, the support rings have “radially inwardly projecting edges” but does not disclose how many edges there are and then “an additional inward projection” is claimed but it is unclear how it is different from the “radially inwardly projecting edges.” What are the differences of the three edges/projections in fig. 10? And what are the differences of the four edges/projections in figure 11? Turning to the specification in an attempt to clarify the claims, the following issues/concerns are raised: the specification only discloses how fig. 10 has an additional inward projection but the specification is not fully clear on what they are. The drawings are also not clear on what are considered edges vs projections. As a result, it is unclear what is included in the plurality of edges and what is not, and what is an additional projection and what is not. An example to fix this issue is to claim two of the radially inwardly projection edges at the axial end of the support ring and an additional inward projection is between the axial end to cooperate with a respective one of the radially inward projection edges at the axial end to form the track for the washer or something similar. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1-4, 7, 9, and 11-12 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the combination set forth in claim 1. As best understood, for claim 1, the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious an axial roller bearing assembly comprising the support ring has radially inwardly projecting edges to facilitate positioning of the support ring around the cage during assembling, and to also function as stops against axial movement of the support ring when the axial roller bearing assembly is in use, wherein the support ring is provided with an additional inwards projection, whereby a track is created for a thrust washer, whereby the thrust washer can be held in place by the support ring during handling and assembling in combination with the other claim limitations. As best understood, the limitation means that there are two edges at the axial ends of the support rings and at least an additional projection in between the two edges. Response to Arguments With regards to the objections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue. With regards 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 02/26/2026, with respect to claims 1-4, 7, 9, and 11-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 9, and 11-12 has been withdrawn. However, the new claim amendment has some clarity issues with the elements that are called “radially inwardly projecting edges” and “additional inward projection” as discussed above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Salunke (US 8807842 B2) discloses a support ring with two edges/projections. 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 AIMEE T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 EST. 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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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. /AIMEE TRAN NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3617 /JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 16, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jul 03, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Nov 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 26, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601377
SUSPENSION BEARING UNIT WITH GASKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590605
CROWN-TYPE RETAINER FOR BALL BEARINGS, AND BALL BEARING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584520
BEARING ASSEMBLY FOR A CONVERTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583455
LONGITUDINAL CONTROL FEEDBACK COMPENSATION DURING BRAKE-TO-STEER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12553473
THRUST BEARING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+18.9%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 142 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