Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/576,960

BEARING DEVICE FOR VEHICLE WHEEL

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 05, 2024
Examiner
BELLINGER, JASON R
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Ntn Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
846 granted / 1215 resolved
+17.6% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
1264
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
35.7%
-4.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1215 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The first page lacks a statement of the 371 and priority status of the application. Paragraph [0040] is an incomplete list of reference characters. Therefore, paragraph [0040] should either be amended to include all of the reference characters used in the drawings, or deleted from the specification. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim 15 is 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. Claim 15 is indefinite due to the fact that variables “F”, “E”, and “G” are undefined in the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) 8-10 ad 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anno (2020/0031164). Per claims 8 and 16, Anno shows a bearing device (i.e. a wheel bearing hub) having an outer member 10 with a double row outer raceway 13 on an inner periphery, an inner member 11 having a double row inner raceway (11a, 11b) facing the outer raceway 13. Double row rolling elements K are disposed between the outer 13 and inner (11a, 11b) raceways. The inner member 11 includes a wheel mounting flange 27 including a plurality of screw holes 28 into which wheel bolts are screwed, said bolts securing a wheel and brake rotor. Ribs 36 are provided on inner-side circumferential edges of the screw holes 28. The flange 27 further includes a screw hole 43 into which a bolt is screwed to fix only the brake rotor. Regarding claim 16, Anno does not show a plurality of hole to which only the brake rotor is fixed on the flange. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include more than one (i.e. a plurality) brake rotor only holes in the hub flange of Anno, as a multiplication of parts, for the purpose of preventing the brake rotor from shifting position on the flange prior to the wheel being fully installed on the hub flange, thus preventing binding or damage to either the wheel or the brake rotor. Regarding claims 8-10 and 12-14, Anno does not specify the dimensions of the wheel stud holes, ribs, or the flange. While not disclosed as being to scale, the ratio of the width of the rib 36 with respect to the nominal diameter of the wheel bolt screw hole 28, the ratio of the thickness of the rib 36 (i.e. the total thickness of the flange at area of the rib) with respect to the nominal diameter of the screw hole 28, and the ratio of the thickness of the mounting flange 27 without the rib with respect to the thickness of the rib 36 all fall within the claimed ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found in obvious to form the features of the flange of Anno with dimensions suitable to secure a wheel and brake rotor thereto without the flange warping or failing during use, dependent weight and durability constraints. Regarding claims 15-16, Anno does not specify the dimensions of the brake rotor screw holes, ribs, or the flange. While not disclosed as being to scale, the ratio of the width of the rib 42 with respect to the nominal diameter of the brake rotor screw hole 43, the ratio of the thickness of the rib 42 (i.e. the total thickness of the flange at area of the rib) with respect to the nominal diameter of the screw hole 43, and the ratio of the thickness of the mounting flange 27 without the rib with respect to the thickness of the rib 42 all fall within the claimed ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found in obvious to form the features of the flange of Anno with dimensions suitable to secure a wheel and brake rotor thereto without the flange warping or failing during use, dependent weight and durability constraints. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anno as applied to claims 8-10 and 12-16 above, and further in view of Tajima et al (6,309,110). Anno does not disclose that a deflection of a region on an outer side surface of the wheel mounting flange 27 on a radially outer side of the pitch circle of the wheel mounting screw hole 28 is 50 µm or less. Tajima et al teaches the use of a wheel bearing hub 1 having a wheel and brake rotor mounting flange 2 wherein the runout (or deflection) of the axially outer surface of the brake rotor 20 is less than 50 µm once the rotor is mounted on the flange. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success to hold a deflection of outer side surface of the wheel mounting flange of Anno to be less than 50 µm, for the purpose of keeping the brake rotor substantially perpendicular to the rotational axis of the wheel bearing hub, thus allowing the largest surface area of the brake rotor to contact the brake pads of a brake caliper, thus maximizing braking force of the vehicle. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show wheel bearing hub flange structure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4. 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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-6684. 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. /JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 05, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583251
WHEELS WITH CONTROLLABLE SUCTION DEVICES FOR ADHESION ON SURFACES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576930
Traction Cleat for Vehicle Tracks
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576677
CORROSION PROTECTION FOR AIRCRAFT WHEEL PNEUMATIC PORTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570104
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LOCKING AND STABILIZING A WHEEL COVER ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12559185
SUPPORT STRUCTURE HAVING A SEAL FOR A TRACK ASSEMBLY AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE HAVING A GUIDE RAIL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+18.5%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1215 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