Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/916,609

NUMERIC CONTROL MACHINE TOOL

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Oct 03, 2022
Examiner
JARRETT, RYAN A
Art Unit
2116
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Proquadro S R L
OA Round
4 (Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
695 granted / 861 resolved
+25.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
881
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.2%
-31.8% vs TC avg
§103
29.9%
-10.1% vs TC avg
§102
34.3%
-5.7% vs TC avg
§112
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 861 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION 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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments and accompanying amendments, see pages 2 and 7-10, filed 12/11/25, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-7, 11-14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki US 2017/0017226 has been withdrawn. It is noted however that independent claim 8 was not amended and therefore claims 8-10 and 16 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 8-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki US 2017/0017226. 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. Yamazaki discloses: 8. CNC machine tool (e.g., Fig. 1 #11 “machining tool”) comprising: a frame (e.g., Fig. 1 #21, [0056]: “seat 21”) to which a fixturing member (e.g., Fig. 1 #22, [0056]: “fixture 22”), on which a workpiece (e.g., Fig. 1: “W”, [0056]: “workpiece W”) is fixed to be machined by a tool (e.g., Fig. 1 #17, [0056]: “tool 17”), can be anchored, an actuator to operate the tool and move it relative to the frame to machine the workpiece in space (e.g., Fig. 1 #17, [0056]), a sensor for performing an optical scan of a geometry present in a portion of the workpiece (e.g., Fig. 1 #15, Fig. 3: “S13”, [0058]), an electronic processor configured for reading digital data generated by the sensor during the optical scan (e.g., [0065]-[0066]: “The calculated three-dimensional coordinates of the workpiece surface are based on a predetermined position in the user coordinate system for the robot 14…the user coordinate system is hereinafter referred to as the robot coordinate system”, Fig. 3: “S15”) and determining from them a coordinate of the geometry in a frame of reference integral with the machine's frame (e.g., [0067]: “the coordinates of a machining start point on the workpiece W, calculated as coordinates in the robot coordinate system, are converted into coordinates in the machine coordinate system”, Fig. 3: “S16”), generating digital machining coordinates, with which to control the actuator during the workpiece processing, wherein the digital machining data are adapted to command and execute a predetermined sequence of machining operations which is calculated in the frame of reference integral with the machine's frame at said coordinate (e.g., [0067]: “The coordinate converting unit 33 then sets the converted coordinates of the machining start point, namely the workpiece origin, into the machining program 30 in the machine tool control unit 12”, Fig. 3: “S20”). 9. Machine tool according to claim 8, wherein the electronic processor is configured so that said digital data generated by the sensor are processed to recognize a geometric pattern and from the geometric pattern said coordinate is obtained (e.g., [0066], [0073]). 10. Machine tool according to claim 8, wherein the electronic processor is configured so that said digital data generated by the sensor are processed to recognize image parts and assign said coordinates to said parts (e.g., [0066], [0073]). 15. Machine tool according to claim 8, wherein the electronic processor is configured so that said digital data generated by the sensor are processed to recognize a geometric pattern, corresponding to a rough finishing, and from the geometric pattern said coordinate is obtained (e.g., [0066], [0073]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-7, 11-14, and 16 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the features added to claim 1 in the amendment filed 12/11/25, in combination with the remaining features and elements of the claimed invention. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RYAN A JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-3742. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30. 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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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. /RYAN A JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116 01/31/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 03, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 03, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 27, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Mar 03, 2025
Response Filed
May 09, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Aug 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Dec 11, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 01, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596350
Linear Actuator Buckling Force Control
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596356
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR LOCALIZATION OF FAULTS IN AN INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING PLANT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593646
Automated Fault Detection in Microfabrication
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591218
INDUSTRIAL DIGITAL TWIN MODEL ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591219
INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS SYSTEMS FOR ABNORMAL ANALYSIS, METHODS, AND STORAGE MEDIUM THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+7.7%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 861 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