Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/975,024

SUBSTRATES AND SPACERS FOR USE WITHIN A THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTING RESERVOIR ASSEMBLY

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 27, 2022
Examiner
DARNELL, BAILEIGH K
Art Unit
1743
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sprintray Inc.
OA Round
5 (Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
6-7
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
259 granted / 372 resolved
+4.6% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
400
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
49.4%
+9.4% vs TC avg
§102
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 372 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 The amendment filed 01/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-6, 10, 12 and 21 have been amended. Claims 7 and 15 remain canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 remain pending and are the claims addressed and examined below. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, 10 and 12 have overcome the claim objections previously set forth in the Office action mailed 09/25/2025. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 6 and 10, in view of the remarks found on pages 2-3, have overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Office action mailed 09/25/2025. Response to Arguments Argument’s Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 21 Applicant argues that, given annotated FIG. 8 from Schultheiss’s disclosure provided in the rejection of claim 1 and claim 21 in the 09/25/2025 Office action, and paragraph [0109] – Schultheiss’s second layer (i.e., frame 62) only exists at the far-left side and at the far-right side fo the assembly and does not extend continuously from a first position directly below the build surface’s first far end to a second position directly below the build surface’s second far end as required by amended claim 1 (see pages 4-5 and pages 10-11). This argument is found persuasive. Applicant further argues that Tumbelston discloses a build plate assembly with a permeable sheet; however, Tumbleston adds nothing to Schultheiss regarding the second layer comprising a rigid substrate extending continuously from a first position directly below the build surface’s first far end to a second position directly below the build surface’s second far end as required by amended claim 1 (see page 6 and page 12). This argument is not found persuasive. As indicated in paragraph [0109] of Schultheiss’s disclosure: “The holding device 58 likewise comprises a peripheral frame 62, which has a central window opening 64, which is closed at the top by the carrier 36 in the form of a sheet of glass 38.” (Schultheiss at [0109], lines 1-4) Tumbelston teaches a rigid support 610 (i.e., second layer) being positioned under the base layer 612 (i.e., third layer) (Tumbelston at [0272], FIGs. 28A-28D). As evident in Tumbelston’s annotated FIG. 28D below, the rigid support 610 extends continuously from a first position directly below the build surface’s first end to a second position directly below the build surface’s second far end. PNG media_image1.png 290 577 media_image1.png Greyscale Tumbelston illustrates in FIG. 2 the build plate 15 being above the radiation source 11 providing electromagnetic radiation 12 through which reflective mirror 13 illuminates a build chamber defined by wall 14 and the rigid build plate 15 forming the bottom of the build chamber (Tumbelston at [0130], FIG. 2) indicative that the rigid base necessarily has to be made of a transparent enough material for light to pass through, making the rigid base suitable for use as a “window”. Thus, for at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s arguments regarding Tumbelston are not found persuasive. Arguments Regarding Claim 10 Applicant's remarks regarding claim 10 have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultheiss et al. (US 2017/0297261; herein referred to as Schultheiss) and Tumbelston et al. (US 2018/0071976; herein referred to Tumbelston) previously set forth in the Office action mailed 09/25/2025. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn. Claim Interpretation The recitation “a third layer … disposed between the first layer and the second layer and unsecured from the first layer” in lines 11-12 of claim 1; and the recitation “the third layer being unsecured from the first and second layers” in lines 8-9 of claim 10 are being interpreted consistent with paragraphs [0055] and [0081] of the specification as filed, along with the definitions of “secure” and “unsecured” provided by Applicant on page 2 of the remarks filed 01/26/2026, so as to be equivalent with unfastened or unattached. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. [AltContent: rect]This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultheiss et al. (US 2017/0297261; of record, herein referred to as Schultheiss) in view of Tumbelston et al. (US 2018/0071976; of record, herein referred to as Tumbelston). As to claim 1: Schultheiss discloses the claimed substrate assembly (i.e., exchange unit 60) for use with a three-dimensional printer reservoir (i.e., system 10 for producing a three-dimensional object includes container 40) and a downward facing build surface (i.e., the three-dimensional object 12 adheres to a platform 52), the reservoir including a frame (i.e., container 40 defines a peripheral frame 42) defining a cavity adapted to be at least partially filled with a photosensitive liquid (i.e., a lower opening of the frame 42 being closed by an elastic flexible carrier element 46 to form a bottom 44; and not yet solidified material 18 is filled into the container 40), and the downward facing build surface including a first far end and a second far end opposite the first far end (i.e., platform 52 extends from a far end just inside peripheral frame 41 and a second far end opposite the first far end just inside the opposite side of peripheral frame 41), (Schultheiss at [0093], [0098], [0101], [0107], [0108], FIG. 3, FIG. 8), the substrate assembly comprising: a first layer comprising a film (i.e., release element 46 takes the form of a flexible elastic membrane) configured to form a lower portion of the cavity and to hold the photosensitive liquid within the cavity (i.e., container 40 comprises a peripheral frame 42, which is closed by a bottom 44, which forms the release element 46 in the form of a flexible elastic membrane) (Schultheiss at [0098], [0108], FIG. 3, FIG. 8 – see annotated copy provided below); a second layer comprising a rigid substrate and configured below the first layer (i.e., frame 62) (Schultheiss at [0109], FIG. 8 – see annotated copy provided below); a third layer comprising a sheet of semirigid material disposed between the first layer and the second layer and unsecured from the first layer (i.e., carrier 36 in the form of a sheet of glass 38 or plastic; and clamping elements 88 keeping the sheet of glass 38 unattached from the bottom 44 forming the release element 46 in the form of a flexible elastic membrane) (Schultheiss at [0033], [0109], FIG. 3, FIG. 8 – see annotated copy provided below); and one or more spacer members disposed between the second layer and the third layer (i.e., projections 66 and supporting projections 72a and 72b) (Schultheiss at [0033], [0070], [0109] [0110], FIG. 8 – see annotated copy provided below). PNG media_image2.png 370 778 media_image2.png Greyscale Schultheiss, as discussed above, discloses the release element 46 taking the form of a flexible elastic membrane (Schultheiss at [0098], [0108]) and therefore reads on the claimed first layer comprising a film. Though, Schultheiss fails to explicitly disclose the flexible elastic membrane being permeable and consequently fails to read on the claimed first layer comprising a permeable film. Moreover, Schultheiss discloses peripheral frame 62 equivalent to the claimed second layer comprising a rigid substate and configured below the first layer; though, Schultheiss discloses a central window opening 64 between peripheral frame 62 and therefore fails to disclose the claimed rigid substrate extending continuously from a first position directly below the builds surface’s first far end to a second position directly below the build surface’s second far end. However, in the same field of endeavor – build plate assemblies for use in three-dimensional printing, Tumbelston teaches a build plate 500/600 with a flexible permeable layer 514/614 (Tumbelston at [0270], [0272], FIGs. 27A-27D, FIGs. 28A-28D). Tumbelston further teaches a rigid support 610 (i.e., second layer) being positioned under the base layer 612 (i.e., third layer) (Tumbelston at [0272], FIGs. 28A-28D). As evident in Tumbelston’s annotated FIG. 28D below, the rigid support 610 extends continuously from a first position directly below the build surface’s first end to a second position directly below the build surface’s second far end. PNG media_image1.png 290 577 media_image1.png Greyscale Tumbelston illustrates in FIG. 2 the build plate 15 being above the radiation source 11 providing electromagnetic radiation 12 through which reflective mirror 13 illuminates a build chamber defined by wall 14 and the rigid build plate 15 forming the bottom of the build chamber (Tumbelston at [0130], FIG. 2) indicative that the rigid base necessarily has to be made of a transparent enough material for light to pass through, making the rigid base suitable for use as a “window”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the permeability of the flexible layer and the continuously extending rigid layer incorporated into the window thereby forming a continuously extending rigid second layer as such is known in the art of build plate assemblies for use in three-dimensional printing given the discussion of Tumbelston above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, Tumbelston acknowledges doing so to be beneficial as it allows for the passage of a gas to the build surface to facilitate the formation of a release layer of unpolymerized liquid material and provides additional stability as the other layers oscillate as the carrier/build platform/object move away from the build plate (Tumbelston at [0140] and [0272]). As to claim 2: Schultheiss and Tumbelston teach the substrate assembly of claim 1 above. Schultheiss further discloses the claimed wherein the semirigid material comprises tempered glass and/or plastic (i.e., carrier 36 in the form of a sheet of glass 38 or in the form of a sheet of plastic) (Schultheiss at [0033], [0109], FIG. 3, FIG. 8). As to claim 4: Schultheiss and Tumbelston teach the substrate assembly of claim 1 above. Schultheiss further discloses the claimed wherein the one or more spacer members are either secured to at least one of the surfaces of the second layer and/or the third layer or unattached to the second and/or to the third layer such that the one or more spacer members sit freely therebetween (i.e., projections 66 and supporting projections 72a and 72b) (Schultheiss at [0033], [0070], [0109], [0110], FIG. 8). As to claim 5: Schultheiss and Tumbelston teach the substrate assembly of claim 1 above. Schultheiss further discloses the claimed wherein the third layer includes a perimeter and an area within the perimeter, and the one or more spacer members are located at locations along the perimeter and/or at locations within the perimeter (i.e., projections 66 and supporting projections 72a and 72b) (Schultheiss at [0033], [0070], [0109], [0110], FIG. 4, FIG. 5, FIG. 8). As to claim 6: Schultheiss and Tumbelston teach the substrate assembly of claim 1 above. Schultheiss further discloses the claimed wherein three spacer members are located along a first edge of the third layer (i.e., supporting projections 72a and 72b) (Schultheiss at [0033], [0070], [0109], [0110], FIG. 5, FIG. 8), and three spacer members are located along a second edge of the third layer opposing the first edge (i.e., supporting projections 72a and 72b) (Schultheiss at [0033], [0070], [0109], [0110], FIG. 5, FIG. 8), two spacer members are located along a third edge of the third layer, and two spacer members are located along a fourth edge of the third layer opposing the third edge (i.e., projections 66) (Schultheiss at [0033], [0070], [0109], [0110], FIG. 4). As to claim 8: Schultheiss and Tumbelston teach the substrate assembly of claim 1 above. Schultheiss further discloses the claimed wherein the one or more spacer members form air channels adjacent the spacer members between the second layer and the third layer (i.e., fluid channels 86 adjacent supporting projections 72b) (Schultheiss at [0122], FIG. 3, FIG. 8). As to claim 9: Schultheiss and Tumbelston teach the substrate assembly of claim 1 above. Schultheiss fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the third layer is about 100 microns to about 3 millimeters thick. However, Tumbelston remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 1; and Tumbelston further teaches build plate 600 including a flexible permeable layer 614 as a first layer; a rigid support 610 as a second layer; and a base layer 612 as the third layer (Tumbelston at [0272]; FIGs. 28A-28D). Tumbelston further teaches the optically transparent base member having a thickness ranging from 0.1 to 100 millimeters (i.e., wherein the third layer is about 100 microns to about 3 millimeters thick) (TUMBLESTON at [0038]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrive at the claimed wherein the third layer is about 100 microns to about 3 millimeters thick, given the teaching of Tumbelston, and such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to scale the size of the third layer such that the thickness is about 100 microns to about 3 millimeters in order to sufficiently provide support and durability during object formation (Tumbelston at [0269]). As to claim 20: Schultheiss and Tumbelston teach the substrate assembly of claim 1 above. Schultheiss further discloses the claimed wherein the third layer is semi-transparent and/or transparent (i.e., carrier 36, in the form of a transparent sheet of glass 38, so as to be in of radiation-transmissive form, making it possible to radiate through the carrier to cure the curable material) (Schultheiss at [0033], [0077], [0098], FIG. 8). [AltContent: rect] Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultheiss and Tumbelston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tseng et al. (US 2021/0197464; of record; herein referred to as Tseng). As to claim 3: Schultheiss and Tumbelston teach the substrate assembly of claim 1 above. Schultheiss fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the one or more spacer members include at least one selected from the group: tape, film, paper, plastic, foam, rubber, wood, and metal. However, Tseng teaches a three-dimensional printing apparatus having a substrate assembly which includes a “bump” disposed within the layers of the substrate assembly (Tseng at [0005]-[0006], [0018], [0021], FIGs. 1A-1C). Tseng further defines a “bump” to be a plurality of bumps separated from one another, wherein the bump is for example a spacer 130, and the spacers 130 being made of an elastic material such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), urethane, etc., or a non-elastic material such as an aluminum plate or a steel plate (i.e., wherein the one or more spacer members include at least one selected from the group: tape, film, paper, plastic, foam, rubber, wood, and metal) (Tseng at [0021], FIGs. 1A-1C). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a spacer made from a plastic, rubber and/or metal, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. [AltContent: rect]Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultheiss et al. (US 2017/0297261; of record, herein referred to as Schultheiss) in view of Tumbelston et al. (US 2018/0071976; of record, herein referred to as Tumbelston). As to claim 21: Schultheiss discloses the claimed substrate assembly (i.e., exchange unit 60) for use with a three-dimensional printer reservoir (i.e., system 10 for producing a three-dimensional object includes container 40) and a downward facing build surface (i.e., the three-dimensional object 12 adheres to a platform 52), the reservoir including a frame (i.e., container 40 defines a peripheral frame 42) defining a cavity adapted to be at least partially filled with a photosensitive liquid (i.e., a lower opening of the frame 42 being closed by an elastic flexible carrier element 46 to form a bottom 44; and not yet solidified material 18 is filled into the container 40), and the downward facing build surface including a first far end and a second far end opposite the first far end (i.e., platform 52 extends from a far end just inside peripheral frame 41 and a second far end opposite the first far end just inside the opposite side of peripheral frame 41), (Schultheiss at [0093], [0098], [0101], [0107], [0108], FIG. 3, FIG. 8), the substrate assembly comprising: a first layer comprising a film (i.e., release element 46 takes the form of a flexible elastic membrane) configured to form a lower portion of the cavity and to hold the photosensitive liquid within the cavity (i.e., container 40 comprises a peripheral frame 42, which is closed by a bottom 44, which forms the release element 46 in the form of a flexible elastic membrane) (Schultheiss at [0098], [0108], FIG. 3, FIG. 8 – see annotated copy provided below); a second layer comprising a rigid substrate and configured below the first layer (i.e., frame 62) (Schultheiss at [0109], FIG. 8 – see annotated copy provided below); a third layer comprising a sheet of semirigid material disposed between the first layer and the second layer (i.e., carrier 36 in the form of a sheet of glass 38 or plastic) (Schultheiss at [0033], [0109], FIG. 3, FIG. 8 – see annotated copy provided below); and one or more spacer members disposed between the second layer and the third layer wherein at least one of the one or more spacer members is a non-adhesive member (i.e., projections 66 and supporting projections 72a and 72b) (Schultheiss at [0033], [0070], [0109] [0110], FIG. 8 – see annotated copy provided below) that are configured to form adjacent air channels to permit gas flow between the second and third layers (i.e., fluid channels 86 adjacent supporting projections 72b permitting gas flow and separation of the release element 46 and sheet of plastic 38 indicated with arrows 96) (Schultheiss at [0033], [0109], [0110], [0122], [0123], FIG. 3, FIG. 8). PNG media_image2.png 370 778 media_image2.png Greyscale Schultheiss, as discussed above, discloses the release element 46 taking the form of a flexible elastic membrane (Schultheiss at [0098], [0108]) and therefore reads on the claimed first layer comprising a film. Though, Schultheiss fails to explicitly disclose the flexible elastic membrane being permeable and consequently fails to read on the claimed first layer comprising a permeable film. Moreover, Schultheiss discloses peripheral frame 62 equivalent to the claimed second layer comprising a rigid substate and configured below the first layer; though, Schultheiss discloses a central window opening 64 between peripheral frame 62 and therefore fails to disclose the claimed rigid substrate extending continuously from a first position directly below the builds surface’s first far end to a second position directly below the build surface’s second far end. However, in the same field of endeavor – build plate assemblies for use in three-dimensional printing, Tumbelston teaches a build plate 500/600 with a flexible permeable layer 514/614 (Tumbelston at [0270], [0272], FIGs. 27A-27D, FIGs. 28A-28D). Tumbelston further teaches a rigid support 610 (i.e., second layer) being positioned under the base layer 612 (i.e., third layer) (Tumbelston at [0272], FIGs. 28A-28D). As evident in Tumbelston’s annotated FIG. 28D below, the rigid support 610 extends continuously from a first position directly below the build surface’s first end to a second position directly below the build surface’s second far end. PNG media_image1.png 290 577 media_image1.png Greyscale Tumbelston illustrates in FIG. 2 the build plate 15 being above the radiation source 11 providing electromagnetic radiation 12 through which reflective mirror 13 illuminates a build chamber defined by wall 14 and the rigid build plate 15 forming the bottom of the build chamber (Tumbelston at [0130], FIG. 2) indicative that the rigid base necessarily has to be made of a transparent enough material for light to pass through, making the rigid base suitable for use as a “window”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the permeability of the flexible layer and the continuously extending rigid layer incorporated into the window thereby forming a continuously extending rigid second layer as such is known in the art of build plate assemblies for use in three-dimensional printing given the discussion of Tumbelston above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, Tumbelston acknowledges doing so to be beneficial as it allows for the passage of a gas to the build surface to facilitate the formation of a release layer of unpolymerized liquid material and provides additional stability as the other layers oscillate as the carrier/build platform/object move away from the build plate (Tumbelston at [0140] and [0272]). As to claim 22: Schultheiss and Tumbelston teach the substrate assembly of claim 1 above. Schultheiss further discloses the claimed wherein the semirigid material comprises tempered glass and/or plastic (i.e., carrier 36 in the form of a sheet of glass 38 or in the form of a sheet of plastic) (Schultheiss at [0033], [0109], FIG. 3, FIG. 8). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-14 and 16-19 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Schultheiss et al. (US 2017/0297261) and Tumbelston et al. (US 2018/0071976) constitute the closest prior art of record. Schultheiss, in view of Tumbelston, disclose: a substrate assembly for use with a three-dimensional printer reservoir, the reservoir including a frame defining a cavity adapted to be at least partially filled with a photosensitive liquid, the substrate assembly comprising: a first layer comprising a permeable film configured to form a lower portion of the cavity and to hold the photosensitive liquid within the cavity; a second layer comprising a rigid substrate and configured below the first layer; a third layer comprising a sheet of semi-rigid tempered glass disposed between the first layer and the second layer, the third layer being unsecured from the first and second layers; configured to bow in response to suction forces exerted during the separation process and return to a generally planar shape during operation; not in physical contact with the photosensitive liquid; and one or more spacer members disposed between the second layer and the third layer. The substrate assembly is deemed novel and non-obvious because the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest the claimed having an upper surface including one or more surface micro-channels or micro-cracks configured to open during flexure of the third layer to release gas toward the first layer and facilitate separation of a solidified and/or cured resin layer from the first layer and to close when the third layer returns to the generally planar shape. Tumbelston discloses a flexible sheet 514 including a patterned layer 516 defining channels 515 with the patterned layer 516 bonded to the base layer 512; the channels 515 also may be etched into the surface of the base layer 512 or formed by laminating two sheets around spacers and subsequently removing the spaces to form longitudinal channels in the sheet; and the channels also may be formed by drilling micro holes in the base layer 512. However, Applicant’s argument regarding the channels 515 are always open and nowhere in the disclosure does Tumbelston teach or otherwise disclose that the channels 515 are configured to open during flexure of the third layer to release gas toward the first layer and facilitate separation of a solidified and/or cured resin layer from the first layer and to close when the third layer returns to the generally planar shape is found to be persuasive. Consequently, given the discussion above, it is the Examiner's assessment that no reference viewed either alone or in combination teaches or reasonably suggests the claimed substrate assembly meeting every limitation of claim 10. Claims 11-14 and 16-19 are indicated as allowable due to their dependency on claim 10. 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 BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST. 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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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. /BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743 /GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 27, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 15, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 15, 2023
Response Filed
Mar 28, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 01, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 26, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583184
THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571390
PLUNGER PUMP AND LIQUID BLOW MOLDING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12543772
ROTATABLE SYSTEM TO REPETITIVELY PREPARE FOOD PATTIES FROM A SOURCE OF FLOWING FOOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539662
MOLDING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12528235
ROTATIONAL MOLDING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A ROTATIONAL MOLDING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+26.4%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 372 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