Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/187,114

AXLE REPAIR KIT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 23, 2025
Examiner
HONG, SEAHEE
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Milton Industries Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
525 granted / 768 resolved
-1.6% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
794
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
38.1%
-1.9% vs TC avg
§102
27.0%
-13.0% vs TC avg
§112
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 768 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the opening of the center of the center circular unit” should be corrected as --wherein the central opening [[of the center]] of the center circular unit--. Appropriate correction is required. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 3-4, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebert (US 2006/0143893 A1) in view of Ohl, JR. et al (US 2016/0305397 A1; Ohl, hereinafter). Regarding claim 1¸ Ebert (‘893) discloses an axle repair kit (fig1) comprising: a center circular unit 26 (para[0024]) having a center opening 28 (para[0024]) and having two additional openings 32 (para[0024]) located near a perimeter of the center circular unit 26 (fig2); an elongated first arm 42 (para[0024], one of four elongated arms 42, fig2) for securing to the center circular unit 26 wherein the elongated first arm receives a bolt 38 (para[0024], one that engages the elongated first arm, fig2); an elongated second arm 42 (para[0024], another one of the four elongated arms 42, fig2) for securing to the center circular unit 26 wherein the elongated second arm receives a bolt 38 (para[0024], one that engages the elongated second arm, fig2); and wherein the elongated first am and the elongated second arm are temporarily secured to the center circular unit 26 (via the first and second bolts). However, Ebert does not explicitly disclose a use of a drill used in the center opening of the center circular unit. It is noted that Ebert teaches a use of a boring bar mechanism (fig7, para[0036]) which is actuated and driven electrically (para[0036]). Ohl (‘397) teaches that it is known to use a boring bar to “drill” (para[0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a boring bar of Ebert as a drill, as taught by Ohl, for the purpose of providing more uses of a boring bar of Ebert. Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ebert and Ohl teaches the axle repair kit of claim 1. Ebert further discloses wherein the elongated first arm and the elongated second arm are identical (fig2, para[0024]). Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ebert and Ohl teaches the axle repair kit of claim 1. Ebert further discloses a first opening 52 (para[0025]) on the elongated first arm and a second opening 44 (para[0024]) on the elongated first arm wherein the first opening 52 of the elongated first arm is circular (fig2) and wherein the second opening 44 of the elongated first arm is not circular (fig2, para[0024], “elongate slot”). Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ebert and Ohl teaches the axle repair kit of claim 1. Ebert further discloses wherein the center opening 28 of the center circular unit 26 has a larger diameter than the diameters of the two openings 32 at the perimeter of the center circular unit 26 (fig2). Regarding claim 9, Ebert discloses an axle repair kit (fig1) comprising: a center circular unit 26 (para[0024]) having a center opening 28 (para[0028]) and having two additional openings 32 (para[0024]) located near a perimeter of the center circular unit 26 (fig2); a first arm 42 (para[0024], one of four elongated arms 42, fig2) for securing to the center circular unit 26; a second arm 42 (para[0024], another one of the four elongated arms 42, fig2) for securing to the center circular unit 26; wherein the first arm and the second arm are temporarily secured to the center circular unit 26 (via bolts 38, para[0024], fig2); and a first opening 52 (para[0025]) on the first arm and a second opening 44 (para[0024]) on the first arm wherein the first opening 52 of the first arm is circular (fig2) and wherein the second opening 44 of the first arm is not circular (fig2, para[0024], “elongate slot”). However, Ebert does not explicitly disclose a use of a drill used in the center opening of the center circular unit. It is noted that Ebert teaches a use of a boring bar mechanism (fig7, para[0036]) which is actuated and driven electrically (para[0036]). Ohl (‘397) teaches that it is known to use a boring bar to “drill” (para[0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a boring bar of Ebert as a drill, as taught by Ohl, for the purpose of providing more uses of a boring bar of Ebert Allowable Subject Matter Claim 10 is allowed. Claims 2, 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The subject matter of the independent claim(s) could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record. The subject matter of independent claim 10 not found was a use of drill bushing removably secured to the center opening wherein a drill bit is placed in a center opening of the drill bushing; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 10 of the instant invention. The subject matter of the claim(s) could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record. The subject matter of claim 2 not found was a use of drill bushing removably secured to the center opening wherein a drill bit is placed in a center opening of the drill bushing; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 2 and any of its intervening claims of the instant invention. The subject matter of the claim(s) could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record. The subject matter of claim 5 not found was a use of the center circular unit having multiple tier layers of decreasing diameters; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 5 and any of its intervening claims of the instant invention. Claim 6 depends on claim 5. None of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention. The closest prior art, Ebert (US 2006/0143893 A1) teaches a similar axle repair kit comprising a center circular unit 26 having a center opening 28 and having two additional openings 32, first and second arms 42 for securing to the center circular unit 26 temporarily (via bolts 38). Although the prior art of record teaches a similar axle repair kit, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ebert to use a drill bushing removably secured to the center opening of the center circular unit (claims 2,10), and/or the center circular unit having multiple tier layers of decreasing diameters (claim 5); in combination with the limitations set forth in claims 2 and 5 and any of their intervening claims, or independent claim 10 of the instant invention. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in claims 2 and 5 and any of their intervening claims, or independent claim 10. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 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 Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET. 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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. /SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 23, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 12, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600013
Miter Clamp Tool Assembly and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594411
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR JOINING METAL SLEEVE ONTO A TUBE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589980
Hand Tool with Slip Resistant Tip
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589623
MANEUVERABLE ERGONOMIC TRAILER STANDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581908
SUBSTRATE HOLDER AND METHOD FOR FIXING AND BONDING A SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+29.8%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 768 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