Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/052,179

RECIPROCATING IMPACT BEVEL TOOTH DISCHARGING SHOVEL OF RECIPROCATING IMPACT MINING MACHINE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 31, 2020
Examiner
PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R
Art Unit
2178
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
8 (Non-Final)
41%
Grant Probability
Moderate
8-9
OA Rounds
5y 4m
To Grant
65%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 41% of resolved cases
41%
Career Allow Rate
96 granted / 232 resolved
-13.6% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 4m
Avg Prosecution
142 currently pending
Career history
374
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
§103
43.5%
+3.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 232 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 . The amendment dated 4 September 2024 is entered. 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 1-6 and 8-16 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. Claim 1 is indefinite regarding “two or more main tooth seats” because the claim previously specified “the …wing plate and the main tooth seat are connected in one piece”—do the two or more tooth seats each have a wing plate? Are they all connected to the same wing plate? Examiner suggests amending to recite “at least one” lateral discharging tooth wing plate in claim 1 line 4 and amending each instance of “the” lateral discharging tooth wing plate to “each … wing plate ” or “corresponding…wing plate” as context requires ; and amending line 6 to read “wherein each main tooth seat is connected in one piece to a lateral discharging tooth wing plate” Furthermore, the claims continue to recite “the” main tooth seat, even though the claim explicitly allows for two or more. Examiner suggests amending each instance of “the” main tooth seat to “each main tooth seat” . Claim 1 is also indefinite regarding “a lateral discharging bevel teeth” because it is not clear if this is the height of a single “tooth” or all “teeth” Claim 1 (second page line 5) introduces lateral discharging bevel teeth on the edge of the main tooth plate—this is indefinite because it is not clear if these are new teeth or the same teeth previously recited; and calls into question what subsequent recitations of “the” lateral discharging bevel teeth. Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-16 are indefinite because they depend from indefinite claim 1 and also because they continue to recite the confusing “the” main tooth seat and/or “the” lateral discharging tooth wing plate and/or “the” lateral discharging bevel teeth. Claim 3 is indefinite regarding the “or” (see blelow) because it is not clear from the indentations which limitation the “or” refers to. PNG media_image1.png 131 764 media_image1.png Greyscale Claims 1-6 and 8-16 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Janine M KRECK whose telephone number is (571)272-7042. The examiner can normally be reached telework: M-F 0600-1530 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, Nicole Coy can be reached on 5712725405. 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. /Janine M Kreck/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 31, 2020
Application Filed
Oct 31, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 07, 2021
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 10, 2021
Response Filed
Feb 22, 2022
Final Rejection — §112
May 27, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 27, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 07, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 15, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 19, 2022
Response Filed
Jan 28, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
May 05, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 07, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 09, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 16, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 22, 2023
Response Filed
Dec 02, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
Feb 27, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 08, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 09, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 04, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
May 12, 2025
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12247323
Continuous Preparation Method of Cellulose Fibers
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 11, 2025
Patent 9271028
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DECODING A DATA STREAM IN AUDIO VIDEO STREAMING SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 23, 2016
Patent 8239350
DATE AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 07, 2012
Patent 8229899
REMOTE ACCESS AGENT FOR CACHING IN A SAN FILE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 24, 2012
Patent 8209280
EXPOSING MULTIDIMENSONAL CALCULATIONS THROUGH A RELATIONAL DATABASE SERVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 26, 2012
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

8-9
Expected OA Rounds
41%
Grant Probability
65%
With Interview (+23.9%)
5y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 232 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