Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/781,990

METHOD FOR PRODUCING FIBER-REINFORCED RESIN ARTICLE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 02, 2022
Examiner
GROUX, JENNIFER LILA
Art Unit
1754
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
36%
Grant Probability
At Risk
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 36% of cases
36%
Career Allow Rate
41 granted / 115 resolved
-29.3% vs TC avg
Strong +49% interview lift
Without
With
+48.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
60 currently pending
Career history
175
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
44.6%
+4.6% vs TC avg
§102
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
§112
32.8%
-7.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 115 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 . Response to Amendment Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-13, and 15 are pending. Claims 2, 5, and 7-8 are canceled. Claims 9-10 remain withdrawn. In view of the amendment, filed 10/14/2025, the following objections and rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 07/28/2025: Rejections of canceled claims Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 New grounds of rejection are made in response to claim amendments. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1, 6, 11-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirooka et al., JP 2018083872 A, in view of Hufenbach et al., US 20150217503 A1, and either of Kihara et al., JP 2012213946 A, or Murakami et al., JP 2014076548 A. Note that the translation of Hirooka provided 05/16/2024, the translation of Kihara provided 02/07/2025, and the translation of Murakami provided 07/28/2025 are referenced below. Regarding claim 1, Hirooka discloses a method for producing a fiber-reinforced resin article (producing fiber-reinforced plastic/resin product, [0021], [0029]), comprising: 3D printing (additive manufacturing, [0029] - p. 6) including forming an article using fibers and a resin (using fibers and resin, [0029] - p. 6) by a 3D printer (by a system using one or more nozzles for performing additive manufacturing, [0029] - p. 6), the fibers being conductive (metal or carbon fibers, [0050]-[0052]; consistent with the instant application, [0051]) and comprising fibers with a fiber length of 3 cm or more (preferred length of more than 30 mm (3 cm), [0049]); Heating the 3D printed article to a temperature at which the resin is softened (the product obtained in the additive manufacturing process is “heated and pressurized,” “the temperature during the application of pressure was preferably within 50°C to the melting/softening temperature up to about 50°C above the melting or softening temperature, [0029] - end of p. 7 through p. 8); and Pressurizing the 3D printed article formed by the 3D printing (“the manufacturing method includes a pressing step…in which the product obtained in the additive manufacturing technology step…is pressed,” or “pressurized,” and the object is “heated and pressurized,” [0029] - p. 7 mid-page) using a mold (a “mold” or “die” into which the additively manufactured article is placed, [0029], p. 7, three lines before line marker 255), Wherein the pressurizing is performed at a temperature at which the resin of the 3D printed article is softened (the product obtained in the additive manufacturing process is “heated and pressurized,” p. 7, starting at line marker 255; the temperature during the pressurization is preferably within 50°C to the melting/softening temperature up to about 50°C above the melting or softening temperature, [0029] - p. 7, last line, through p. 8 end of para. [0029]; the prior art softening temperature is consistent with the present specification, [0050]). Hirooka is silent as to an exact timing of the heating of the article and therefore as to the pressurizing being performed after the heating the 3D printed article; however, Hirooka specifically discloses the pressurizing being performed at or above the melting/softening temperature of the article ([0029]). Accordingly, performing the heating prior to the pressurizing would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to predictably ensure the temperature of the article was at the necessary melting/softening temperature for successful pressurization as disclosed by Hirooka. Hirooka is silent as to the heating being performed by induction heating without contact between a heating device that heats the 3D printed article and the 3D printed article. In the analogous art, Hufenbach discloses a method for manufacturing a fiber-reinforced composite product, including heating a fiber/resin preform prior to pressing the preform in a die (Abstract). Hufenbach discloses that heating the fiber/resin preform upstream of the die advantageously helps to reduce adhesion of matrix material to the die ([0023]), and non-contact heating, such as by inductive heating, results in rapid, energy-efficient, and uniform heating suitable for multi-layered parts, avoids difficulties related to voids/hollows that may slow down heat conduction from a heated outer surface, prevents local overheating, and enhances quality and reproducibility ([0024]). Hufenbach discloses inductively heating is suitable for materials with conductive fiber reinforcements ([0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating step of Hirooka so that the heating was performed by induction heating without contact between a heating device that heats the 3D printed article and the 3D printed article, in order to achieve a more rapid, uniform, and thorough heating of the fiber/resin article, as taught by Hufenbach. Hirooka does not explicitly state the mold is heated separately from the 3D printed article. The limitation is interpreted to require that the mold is heated in addition to the article being heated as set forth above (the mold being heated in any manner). In the analogous art, Kihara discloses a method of heating a fiber-resin composite article and then pressurizing the heated article in a mold ([0009], [0039]-[0040]). Kihara teaches heating the fiber-resin composite article prior to compression ([0039]-[0040]) and heating the mold in addition to heating the article (the mold being kept at a specific temperature, [0043], [0050]) in order to produce a product with a good surface appearance ([0043]). Kihara additionally teaches that avoiding a temperature difference between upper and lower molding dies is beneficial to avoid warping of the product ([0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify in the method of Hirooka that the mold is heated separately from the 3D article in order to ensure the mold was uniformly maintained at an appropriate temperature for pressurization of the preheated article to achieve a good surface quality and avoid warping of the product, as taught by Kihara. Alternatively, in the analogous art of molding fiber-reinforced plastic products ([0001]), Murakami discloses a method including preheating a preliminarily molded fiber composite product ([0031] including by induction heating, [0045]) and then providing the preheated product to a separately heated secondary molding press for compression/molding to a final shape ([0031]-[0032], [0046]). Murakami teaches the molding elements of the secondary molding press device being separately heated from the preheated molded object so as to provide the capability of imparting different temperatures to the product during the pressurizing ([0046]) and that the molded product ultimately has excellent tensile strength ([0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify in the method of Hirooka that the mold is heated separately from the 3D article in order to provide the capability of specific mold temperature control for the pressurizing and to ensure a final molded product having high strength, as taught by Murakami. Regarding claim 6, modified Hirooka discloses the method of claim 1. Hirooka further discloses the temperature at which the resin is softened is from (a softening temperature of the resin - 100°C) to (a softening temperature of the resin + 300°C), as Hirooka discloses a narrower temperature range of (a softening temperature of the resin - 50°C) to (a softening temperature of the resin + 50°C), with a preferred lower limit of (a softening temperature of the resin - 15°C). These ranges are entirely within the claimed range for the heating temperature, therefore, the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art. Regarding claim 11, modified Hirooka discloses the method of claim 1, and Hirooka further discloses the resin is a thermoplastic resin ([0021], [0034]). Regarding claim 12, modified Hirooka discloses the method of claim 1, and Hirooka further discloses the resin is a thermosetting resin ([0021], [0034]). Regarding claim 13, modified Hirooka discloses the method of claim 1, and Hirooka further discloses the fibers are carbon fibers ([0050]-[0051]). Regarding claim 15, modified Hirooka discloses the method of claim 1. Hirooka discloses the 3D printed article formed by the 3D printer is disposed in a cavity of the mold (“the product obtained by the additive manufacturing technology process…is placed in a mold, e.g., a die,” [0029], p. 7, three lines above line marker 255), and the 3D printed article is pressurized in the cavity (“the product obtained…is placed in a mold, e.g., a die…and pressurized,” [0029], p. 7). Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirooka et al., JP 2018083872 A, in view Kutsuwada et al., US 20150209982 A1, and Fetfatsidis et al., US 20210347115 A1. Regarding claim 3, Hirooka discloses a method for producing a fiber-reinforced resin article (producing fiber-reinforced plastic/resin product, [0021], [0029]), comprising: 3D printing (additive manufacturing, [0029] - p. 6) including forming an article using fibers and a resin (using fibers and resin, [0029] - p. 6) by a 3D printer (by a system using one or more nozzles for performing additive manufacturing, [0029] - p. 6), the fibers comprising fibers with a fiber length of 3 cm or more (preferred length of more than 30 mm (3 cm), [0049]); Heating the 3D printed article to a temperature at which the resin is softened (the product obtained in the additive manufacturing process is “heated and pressurized,” “the temperature during the application of pressure was preferably within 50°C to the melting/softening temperature up to about 50°C above the melting or softening temperature, [0029] - end of p. 7 through p. 8); and Pressurizing the 3D printed article formed by the 3D printing (“the manufacturing method includes a pressing step…in which the product obtained in the additive manufacturing technology step…is pressed,” or “pressurized,” and the object is “heated and pressurized,” [0029] - p. 7 mid-page) using a mold (a “mold” or “die” into which the additively manufactured article is placed, [0029], p. 7, three lines before line marker 255), Wherein the pressurizing is performed at a temperature at which the resin of the 3D printed article is softened (the product obtained in the additive manufacturing process is “heated and pressurized,” p. 7, starting at line marker 255; the temperature during the pressurization is preferably within 50°C to the melting/softening temperature up to about 50°C above the melting or softening temperature, [0029] - p. 7, last line, through p. 8 end of para. [0029]; the prior art softening temperature is consistent with the present specification, [0050]), Wherein the 3D printed article is a flat plate article (Fig. 1). Hirooka is silent as to an exact timing of the heating and therefore as to the pressurizing being performed after the heating the 3D printed article; however, Hirooka specifically discloses the pressurizing being performed at or above the melting/softening temperature of the article ([0029]). Accordingly, performing the heating prior to the pressurizing would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to predictably ensure the temperature of the article was at the necessary melting/softening temperature for successful pressurization as disclosed by Hirooka. Hirooka is silent as to the heating being performed by infrared irradiation without contact between a heating device that heats the 3D printed article and the 3D printed article. Hirooka does not explicitly state the mold is heated separately from the 3D printed article; this limitation is interpreted to require that the mold is heated in addition to the article being heated as set forth above (the mold being heated in any manner). In the analogous art of manufacturing molded articles of a fiber-reinforced composite material (Abstract), Kutsuwada discloses a method of heating a layered fiber-resin composite article by infrared irradiation without contact between a heating device and the article ([0082], Fig. 6, laminated sheet 6 is heated by infrared heater 10) and then pressurizing the heated article in a mold ([0082], Fig. 6, shaping between dies 7 and 8 of press molding machine 9). Kutsuwada teaches heating the fiber-resin composite article prior to compression ([0082], Fig. 6) and heating the mold in addition to heating the article (the die temperature being regulated to a desired temperature, [0070]-[0071]) in order to enhance productivity ([0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify in the method of Hirooka the heating to the temperature at which the resin is softened being performed by infrared irradiation without contact between a heating device that heats the 3D printed article and the 3D printed article so as to utilize a suitable heating method for the layered fiber-resin composite article and that the mold is heated separately from the 3D article in order to ensure the mold was maintained at an appropriate temperature for pressurization of the preheated article and to enhance productivity of the molding cycle, as taught by Kutsuwada. Hirooka discloses the printed layers result in stacked layers forming a flat plate shape (Fig. 1, [0119]). Hirooka discloses the 3D printed article is printed in multiple layers of around 0.2-0.3 mm thickness, where the layering is repeated to obtain a model of a desired thickness ([0119], [0124]). In other words, Hirooka describes that an ultimate thickness of the printed article, which depends on a number of times the layering process is repeated, should be chosen to obtain a desired thickness of the product, and thickness values in the claimed range would have been encompassed by following the process of [0119] and repeating “multiple times” as disclosed. Hirooka does not explicitly state that the flat plate article has a thickness of 1.5 cm or less. Kutsuwada further discloses performing the heating on a laminate structure having a thickness preferably in the range of 0.1 to 5 mm, or 0.01 to 0.5 cm, which enables the shape of the preform to be maintained while facilitating further shaping and avoiding wrinkles ([0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the flat plate article of Hirooka had a thickness of 1.5 cm or less, as the claimed range was within the scope of Hirooka’s layering process, where Hirooka teaches performing the layering to achieve a desired thickness, and Kutsuwada teaches that layered fiber composite articles with thicknesses inside the claimed range are beneficially able to be efficiently heated and further molded. Hirooka’s flat plate article appears to have a generally uniform thickness (Fig. 1) and there is no disclosure of thickness variation in the 3D printed article, which is a rectangular part composed of flat layers (Fig. 1, [0119]-[0120]). Still, Hirooka is silent as to the flat plate article having 1<={(thickness of a thickest portion)/(thickness of a thinnest portion)}<=2. In the analogous art of 3D printing fiber-reinforced materials (Abstract), Fetfatsidis teaches performing 3D printing so that layers have the same thickness t (Fig. 8A) because predictable dimensions enable accurate deposition of future layers during fabrication ([0179]). A part composed of stacked flat layers having the same thickness (Fig. 8A) would have a uniform thickness, i.e., the (thickness of a thickest portion)/(thickness of a thinnest portion) being around 1. In the case it was not necessarily present, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the process of Hirooka deposited layers having the same thickness, such that the printed flat plate article had a uniform thickness, i.e., the (thickness of a thickest portion)/(thickness of a thinnest portion) being around 1, in order to work with predictable dimensions for the accurate deposition of successive layers during fabrication, as taught by Fetfatsidis. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirooka et al., JP 2018083872 A, in view of Knoll, US 4859267 A, and either of Kihara et al., JP 2012213946 A, or Murakami et al., JP 2014076548 A. Regarding claim 4, Hirooka discloses a method for producing a fiber-reinforced resin article (producing fiber-reinforced plastic/resin product, [0021], [0029]), comprising: 3D printing (additive manufacturing, [0029] - p. 6) including forming an article using fibers and a resin (using fibers and resin, [0029] - p. 6) by a 3D printer (by a system using one or more nozzles for performing additive manufacturing, [0029] - p. 6), the fibers comprising fibers with a fiber length of 3 cm or more (preferred length of more than 30 mm (3 cm), [0049]); Heating the 3D printed article to a temperature at which the resin is softened (the product obtained in the additive manufacturing process is “heated and pressurized,” “the temperature during the application of pressure was preferably within 50°C to the melting/softening temperature up to about 50°C above the melting or softening temperature, [0029] - end of p. 7 through p. 8); and Pressurizing the 3D printed article formed by the 3D printing (“the manufacturing method includes a pressing step…in which the product obtained in the additive manufacturing technology step…is pressed,” or “pressurized,” and the object is “heated and pressurized,” [0029] - p. 7 mid-page) using a mold (a “mold” or “die” into which the additively manufactured article is placed, [0029], p. 7, three lines before line marker 255), Wherein the pressurizing is performed at a temperature at which the resin of the 3D printed article is softened (the product obtained in the additive manufacturing process is “heated and pressurized,” p. 7, starting at line marker 255; the temperature during the pressurization is preferably within 50°C to the melting/softening temperature up to about 50°C above the melting or softening temperature, [0029] - p. 7, last line, through p. 8 end of para. [0029]; the prior art softening temperature is consistent with the present specification, [0050]). Hirooka is silent as to an exact timing of the heating and therefore as to the pressurizing being performed after the heating the 3D printed article; however, Hirooka specifically discloses the pressurizing being performed at or above the melting/softening temperature of the article ([0029]). Accordingly, performing the heating prior to the pressurizing would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to predictably ensure the temperature of the article was at the necessary melting/softening temperature for successful pressurization as disclosed by Hirooka. Hirooka is silent as to the heating being performed by laser irradiation without contact between a heating device that heats the 3D printed article and the 3D printed article. In the analogous art, Knoll teaches non-contact heating of a fiber/resin article undergoing further pressurizing (Abstract, col. 3, lines 10-23; col. 9, lines 20-40), wherein heating by means of radiation, and specifically using a laser source, is beneficial to achieve localized heating of the object (col. 5, line 50 - col. 6, line 9). Knoll teaches that use of focused radiant heating is beneficial for an even pressure application and avoiding undesirable heating of the surrounding environment (col. 2, lines 31-43; col. 3, lines 20-23; col. 6, lines 22-37). Knoll evidences that a laser source was a known alternative to other composite material heating sources for achieving localized heating of the material (col. 6, lines 10-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating step of Hirooka such that the heating was performed by laser irradiation without contact between the heating device and the article as an expedient option for successfully achieving focused heating of the object and a uniform pressure application while avoiding undesirable heating of the surrounding environment, as taught by Knoll. Hirooka does not explicitly state the mold is heated separately from the 3D printed article. The limitation is interpreted to require that the mold is heated in addition to the article being heated as set forth above (the mold being heated in any manner). In the analogous art, Kihara discloses a method of heating a fiber-resin composite article and then pressurizing the heated article in a mold ([0009], [0039]-[0040]). Kihara teaches heating the fiber-resin composite article prior to compression ([0039]-[0040]) and heating the mold in addition to heating the article (the mold being kept at a specific temperature, [0043], [0050]) in order to produce a product with a good surface appearance ([0043]). Kihara additionally teaches that avoiding a temperature difference between upper and lower molding dies is beneficial to avoid warping of the product ([0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify in the method of Hirooka that the mold is heated separately from the 3D article in order to ensure the mold was uniformly maintained at an appropriate temperature for pressurization of the preheated article to achieve a good surface quality and avoid warping of the product, as taught by Kihara. Alternatively, in the analogous art of molding fiber-reinforced plastic products ([0001]), Murakami discloses a method including preheating a preliminarily molded fiber composite product ([0031], [0045]) and then providing the preheated product to a separately heated secondary molding press for compression/molding to a final shape ([0031]-[0032], [0046]). Murakami teaches the molding elements of the secondary molding press device being separately heated from the preheated molded object so as to provide the capability of imparting different temperatures to the product during the pressurizing ([0046]) and that the molded product ultimately has excellent tensile strength ([0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify in the method of Hirooka that the mold is heated separately from the 3D article in order to provide the capability of specific mold temperature control for the pressurizing and to ensure a final molded product having high strength, as taught by Murakami. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (pp. 5-6) that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the features therein and otherwise fail to provide for a rationale for achieving the unexpected results therefrom. Applicant argues that the combination of features of the amended claims provide for excellent performance compared to other similar features based on a table found in paragraph [0055] of the filed specification that labels results related to characteristics of the article to be heated as “excellent” for certain conditions of the various heating methods. These arguments are not found persuasive. The cited references disclose the claimed method steps and support that the claimed heating techniques were known for heating fiber/resin composite articles. The table does not appear to support unexpected results over the prior art as there is no clear indication as to what properties or features are being evaluated nor what the results of “excellent,” “good,” or “marginal” mean in an objective sense and how this compares to the prior art. Regarding unexpected results, the burden is on the Applicant to establish that results are actually unexpected and significant, and the evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. For example, heating a material containing conductive fibers using induction heating, which works by heating conductive materials, would have been expected to be successful; therefore, it is unclear what results would be unexpected. Furthermore, Applicants have the burden of explaining proffered data (MPEP 716.02). 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 JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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. /J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754 /SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 02, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 23, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 23, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 24, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 26, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 17, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 18, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 14, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12552127
Embossing System with Embossing Cassette
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12539669
COAXIAL LASER-WIRE OPTICAL SYSTEM FOR USE IN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12508785
A COMPOSITE PART PRODUCTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12472560
MULTI-BEAM COAXIAL LASER OPTICAL SYSTEM FOR USE IN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Patent 12455503
Lithographic Method for Imprinting Three-Dimensional Microstructures Having Oversized Structural Heights Into a Carrier Material
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
36%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+48.6%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 115 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