Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/706,473

MECHANICAL ROLLER BEARING

Final Rejection §112
Filed
May 01, 2024
Examiner
PILKINGTON, JAMES
Art Unit
3617
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Safran Aircraft Engines
OA Round
2 (Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
1098 granted / 1568 resolved
+18.0% vs TC avg
Strong +52% interview lift
Without
With
+51.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
1620
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
37.2%
-2.8% vs TC avg
§102
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
§112
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1568 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 5, 22 and 28 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 5, in addressing the previous rejection Applicant removed the quantifying terms that were used to define the “progressively varying curvature”. However, the issue with claim 5 was that the shape that the claim required was unclear. “Progressively varying curvature” was previously defined by the terms removed from the claim, while the terms defining the curvature were also unclear, the more generic term would also be unclear and indefinite. In other words, the whole claim was indefinite since what shapes the claim was limited to was unknown. The reference to the specific descriptions of the shapes previously set forth in the claim was to explain how the recitations being used to quantify “progressively varying curvature” where unclear, removing these from the claim results in there being no definition or quantifying meaning for “progressively varying curvature”. Because of this the shape defined by the claim is still unclear, unknown and indefinite. Claims 22 and 28 recite the same recitation as claim 5 and are indefinite for the same reason. Claims 22 and 28 recites the limitation "the rounded edges" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 22 and 28 should depend from claim 21 and claim 27 respectively. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The amendment to claim 1 captured the allowable subject matter defining specific aspects of invention being made out of a specific material combination, dependent claim 2 is defining the materials based on a function which covers material other than the specific combination set forth in claim 1. Because of this claim 2, at the very least, does not provide a further limiting feature as this would be the property of the materials listed in claim 1 or could be broadening the range of materials set forth in claim 1 and is thus be an improper dependent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20-21, 23-27 and 39-31 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 1, amended to include the previously indicated allowable subject matter of claim 8, the prior art of record does not disclose the structural features of claim 1 with the blocks and races both being made of ceramic with the rolling element being made of steel. The prior art of record does not each nor render obvious this specific combination of materials recited by the claim. Regarding claim 20, previous claim 13, the prior art of record does not disclose the combination of features of the claim with the rolling elements specifically being spherical and the blocks being diamond in a cross-section, as defined by the claim, along a radial plane. Regarding claim 26, previous claim 14, the prior art of record does not disclose the combination of features of the claim with the rolling elements specifically being tapered roller elements and the support faces (surfaces that contact raceways) have a frustoconical shape. 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.” Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the remain issue with claim 5, Applicant makes no specific argument regarding the prior rejection. As explained above the amendment does not fully resolve the issue as previously raised which was direct to the shape, as defined in the claim as a whole, being unclear. All other issues raised above have been necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. 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 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 JAMES PILKINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-5052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7-3. 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. /JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 01, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 26, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 13, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601372
WHEEL BEARING ASSEMBLIES AND VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595824
Plain Bearing Assembly Having a Rail and a Slide
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595821
FOIL BEARING ASSEMBLY INCLUDING BIDIRECTIONAL ANTI-ROTATION FEATURES AND COMPRESSOR INCLUDING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590603
JOURNAL BEARING HYBRID DAMPENING FOR INCREASED TEMPERATURE RANGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584514
GAS BEARING DEVICE AND TURBOCHARGER
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+51.5%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1568 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month