Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 17/926,871

MACHINE AND METHOD FOR THE DIGITAL DECORATION OF PRODUCTS WITH GRANULAR MATERIALS AND THE LIKE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 21, 2022
Priority
May 29, 2020 — IT 102020000012958 +1 more
Examiner
KRASNOW, NICHOLAS R
Art Unit
1744
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Probono S R L
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allowance Rate
271 granted / 410 resolved
+1.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
464
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
89.6%
+49.6% vs TC avg
§102
4.1%
-35.9% vs TC avg
§112
5.6%
-34.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 410 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues the claims drawings support the exclusion of a removal means. Examiner does not find this persuasive. The drawings do not provide support for the selective exclusion of one particular element in order to amend around the prior art. The mere absence of a positive recitation in the specification is not enough. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The drawings do not provide support for the selective exclusion of one particular element in particular configuration (not locating any removal between deposition means and the print head as claimed). This appears to be an amendment solely for the purpose of amending around the prior art and not for conveying what applicant regards as their invention. When the specification is read from the perspective of a person of skill in the art there is no indication that Applicant intended to selectively exclude this particular element arrangement as claimed. Verbatim support is not necessary, but there should be evidence in the specification that applicant intended to exclude the element as claimed. The mere absence of a positive recitation in the specification is not enough. The drawings are part of the specification. Thus, the mere absence of the element in the drawing is not enough. Applicant can claim what’s drawn in open or closed form, but they cannot, without support, exclude just enough to distance themselves from the prior art. Conclusion Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm. 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, Xiao Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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. /NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 21, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Oct 29, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Apr 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
May 12, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
May 14, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678891
WAFER MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12672656
MOULD DRUM, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MOULDING AND A METHOD FOR CONFIGURING A MOULD DRUM
3y 9m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12667223
ELECTRIC ROASTER EQUIPPED WITH DUAL AIR PURIFICATION AND CIRCULATION SYSTEM
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12661658
SECTIONABLE CASSETTE AND EMBEDDING FRAME WITH CONNECTORS, AND METHODS FOR PREPARING BIOPSY TISSUE SAMPLES
3y 8m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12642660
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SPACERS
2y 10m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+12.7%)
3y 3m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 410 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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