Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/755,753

COMPOSITE TAPE SPLICING

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 06, 2022
Examiner
MUSSER, BARBARA J
Art Unit
1746
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
591 granted / 834 resolved
+5.9% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
862
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.6%
+7.6% vs TC avg
§102
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
§112
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 834 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/16/26 has been entered. 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) 51 and 53-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garneau et al. in view of Arcidiacono et al.(WO 2017/220327) and Green. Garneau et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a pipe comprising winding a first sheet of composite tape(armor) from a first roll around a core layer(pipe), overlapping the end of the sheet with the beginning of another sheet of composite tape when the first composite tape on the first roll is depleted, joining them together via gluing[0057], and continuing forming the pipe by winding the new sheet onto the core layer.()[0028];[00057]) The reference does not disclose the strength of the lap joint or the specifics of how it is formed. Arcidiacono et al. discloses joining together two composites using ultrasonic welding along to form a bond with an with a join that will not separate during normal use.(Pg. 3, ll. 5-30) The reference does not disclose the actual shear strength, but states that the join will not separate under pulling forces of 40N and lists tensile strength of up to 346N.(Table 3) The reference discloses the ultrasonic welding applies pressure(Pg. 2, ll. 13-15, and one in the art would understand that vibrating the material would generate heat. Green discloses a method of overlapping and joining two composite layers wherein heat and pressure are applied to form a joint with an average shear strength of over 11 MPa.(Table 2; Pg. 6, ll. 19- Pg. 7, ll. 21) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use the bonding method of Arcidiacono et al. to form a joint in Garneau since this results in a joint hat will not separate during normal use and for the shear strength to be above 11 MPa since Green shows that a good shear strength for a joint in composites is above 11 MPa.(Table 2) Regarding claims 53-55, while Arcidiacono et al. appears to teach a vertical sonotrode the use of a rotary sonotrode(roll) is well-known and conventional I the ultrasonic arts and would have been obvious for this reason. This would apply pressure via a roller which would apply pressure progressively from one end of the joint to the other and would result in uneven application of pressure as the roller moved across the joint. Regarding claims 56 and 57, since ultrasonic welders generate the heat, the pressure application occurs first and then the heat commences due to the vibrations. This would commerce the application of pressure at a different time than the application of heat. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 52 and 58 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: regarding claim 52, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest using a pressure plate to apply the pressure in addition to the ultrasonic sonotrode. Regarding claim 58, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest pre-heating the end region of at least one of the lengths of tape prior to overlapping. Response to Arguments Examiner apologizes for the previous indication of allowability which is now withdrawn. Examiner notes she attempted to contact applicant multiple times to suggest an examiner’s amendment but did not receive a response. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays. 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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. BARBARA J. MUSSER Primary Examiner Art Unit 1746 /BARBARA J MUSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 06, 2022
Application Filed
May 06, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 30, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 01, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 16, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599507
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANUFACTURING AN ELASTIC LAMINATE AND A DISPOSABLE ABSORBENT HYGIENE PRODUCT COMPRISING THE ELASTIC LAMINATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589559
AUTOMATED FIBER PLACEMENT ASSEMBLY WITH PRESSURE ROLLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575978
Method for Manufacturing Absorbent Sanitary Products
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565029
FUNCTIONAL FABRIC OBTAINED BY RECYCLING SEPARATOR FOR SECONDARY BATTERY, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558851
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A GATHERED MATERIAL
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
71%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+27.3%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 834 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