Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/511,435

DEVICE FOR GENERATING AN AXIAL LOAD IN A DRILL STRING ASSEMBLY

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Oct 26, 2021
Examiner
LONG, ROBERT FRANKLIN
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Pgi Holding Limited
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
782 granted / 1094 resolved
+1.5% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
74 currently pending
Career history
1168
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
§102
32.3%
-7.7% vs TC avg
§112
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1094 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed 01/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4 are pending in the application. 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 4 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. The terms “skewed” and “displaced gravity” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “skewed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is the elastic plate that is wing-shaped flat skewed relative to? It is not clear what orientation “skewed” is limited to absent any axis or relative structure to base “skewed” on. Presumably applicant intends that the key end positions are skewed relative to each other as shown in figure 4. Also, what is “displaced gravity center” displaced from? Is the displaced gravity center displaced from the centroid? Is “displaced gravity center” same as the center of gravity? Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-2 are allowed. Claim 4 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. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious an axial load device having a hollow cylinder portion that is arranged with two-sided longitudinally directed slots with piston having keys mating with the slots comprising all the structural and functional limitations and further comprising, amongst other limitations/features gaps are provided with possibility of providing profile key with two degrees of freedom in grooves of the cylinder portion and the profile key natural vibration frequency is directly proportional to length of key and velocity of propagation of generated flexural wave over the key and inversely proportional to square of thickness of key with length of two-sided longitudinally directed slots provided based on maximum stroke of the piston operating in Euler zone of stable equilibrium with permissible critical stresses derived from action of optimal axial load on a drill bit of the drill string. Though the prior art teaches a mud motor with hollow cylinder with piston having a key, there is no teaching for a piston having keys with key end positions are skewed relative to each other to engage slots in the cylinder with two degrees of freedom with natural oscillation frequency proportional to the length of the key and one of ordinary skill would recognize that keys with key end positions are skewed relative to each other to engage slots in the cylinder with two degrees of freedom with natural oscillation frequency proportional to the length of the key archives the unexpected result of optimizing axial load on a drill string. Having the efficiency of the drilling assembly is improved by optimizing axial load on sections and the cutting tool/drill bit and preventing jamming of the tool. While various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). 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 with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph 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 ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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. /ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 26, 2021
Application Filed
Oct 23, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
May 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 12, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600025
ERGONOMIC MANUAL DRIVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12576452
DRILL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576499
POWER ADAPTER FOR A POWERED TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564925
GAS SPRING-POWERED FASTENER DRIVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558092
END EFFECTORS, SURGICAL STAPLING DEVICES, AND METHODS OF USING SAME
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+21.4%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1094 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