Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/006,478

ROTO-TRANSLATIONAL MIXING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103§112§DP
Filed
Jan 23, 2023
Examiner
OLIVA, STEPHANIE RENEE
Art Unit
3761
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
20%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
0%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 20% of cases
20%
Career Allow Rate
1 granted / 5 resolved
-50.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -20% lift
Without
With
+-20.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
47
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 5 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112 §DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim 1 and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/006, 291. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims anticipate the instant claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Instant Application 18/ 006, 478 Copending Application 18/006, 291 Claim 1: A machine for handling a flavouring ingredient and preparing a beverage therefrom and serving said beverage via a dispensing outlet to a consumer receptacle including a mixing unit that comprises: [1] a support, such as a frame and/or housing, that is stationary during said handling of said flavouring ingredient; configured to receive said flavouring ingredient unwrapped before mixing with said water [2]; a seat configured to receive said flavouring ingredient unwrapped before mixing with said water; a closure part configured to close and open the ingredient opening; a wall part that is movable inside the seat, the seat, the closure part and the wall part being: directly or indirectly mounted to the support, and relatively movable between: a transfer configuration for supplying said flavouring ingredient into the seat and removing such ingredient upon beverage preparation; and a mixing chamber configuration in which the seat and the closure part and the wall part form a mixing chamber fluidically connected with the water source, during beverage preparation, said flavouring ingredient being mixed with said water in the mixing chamber to form said beverage prior to serving thereof via the dispensing outlet, the seat is configured to move relatively to the support according to simultaneous and successive geometric translation and geometric rotation [3]. Claim 9: The machine of claim 1, wherein, after an introduction into the seat’s ingredient opening in the transfer configuration of at least one solid portion of a self-supporting agglomerate of said flavouring ingredient and subsequent relative movement from the transfer configuration into the mixing chamber configuration and prior to serving said beverage via the dispensing outlet, said control unit is configured to control a preconditioning of the flavouring ingredient [4] by: a portion break-up relative movement of the seat and the closure part and the wall part… Claim 1. A machine for handling a flavoring ingredient and preparing a beverage therefrom and serving said beverage via a dispensing outlet to a consumer receptacle by mixing water from a water source comprising: a support, such as a frame and/or housing, that is stationary during said handling of said flavouring ingredient; a seat configured to receive said flavouring ingredient unwrapped before mixing with said water; a closure part configured to close and open the ingredient opening; a wall part that is movable inside the seat, the seat, the closure part and the wall part being: directly or indirectly mounted to the support; and relatively movable between: a transfer configuration for supplying said flavouring ingredient into the seat and/or removing such ingredient upon beverage preparation; and a mixing chamber configuration in which the seat and the closure part and the wall part form a mixing chamber fluidically connected with the water source, during beverage preparation, said flavouring ingredient being mixed with said water in the mixing chamber to form said beverage prior to serving thereof via the dispensing outlet, such machine comprising a control unit, the control unit is configured to control a preconditioning of the flavouring ingredient [4] after an introduction into the seat’s ingredient opening in the transfer configuration of at least one solid portion of a self-supporting agglomerate of said flavouring ingredient and subsequent relative movement from the transfer configuration into the mixing chamber configuration and prior to serving said beverage via the dispensing outlet, wherein said preconditioning of the flavouring ingredient comprises: a portion break-up relative movement of the seat and the closure part and the wall part. Claim 4: The machine of claim 1, wherein the seat is configured to move relatively to the support according to simultaneous and/or successive geometric translation and geometric rotation [3] [1] The components of the mixing unit are claimed in the co-pending application, so the recitation that they comprise a “mixing unit” does not further limit the claim. In particular, since the claim recites elsewhere a “mixing chamber.” [2] The seat and support of the co-pending claims form the mixing chamber together, so it is understood that the support also receives the flavouring ingredient. [3], [4] The limitations are in a different order, but nearly identical. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are as follows: “a closure part configured to close and open the ingredient opening” in Claim 1 and 12 further defined by the applicant’s specifications as “configured to form a lid” [Page 4]. Therefore, a lid that covers the ingredient opening will be understood to read on the limitations of the claim. “Said control unit… configured to control a preconditioning of the flavouring ingredient” in Claim 9 further defined by the applicant’s specifications as “a unit comprising at least one of a controller; a processor; a printed circuit board; a user-interface; and a power manager” [Page 6]. Therefore, a unit comprising at least one of a controller; a processor; a printed circuit board; a user-interface; and a power manager will be understood to read on the limitations of the claim. “a waste ingredient remover configured to remove a waste ingredient” in Claim 6 further defined by the applicant’s specifications as “the remover may have at least one of: a drawer-type configuration for being deployed and retracted over the ingredient opening in the transfer configuration…and a front face provided with a recessed part” [Page 10]. Therefore, this interpretation will be considered for the sake of examination. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitations “a support, such as a frame and/or housing.” With regard to these limitations, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the limitations following the phrase do not further limit the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitations “the ingredient opening”, “said water”, and “the water source”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction to “an ingredient opening”, “water” and “a water source” respectively is recommended. Claim 4 recites the limitation “said wall part actuator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction to “a wall part actuator” is recommended. Claim 9 recites the limitation “said control unit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction to “a control unit” is recommended. Claim 11 recites the limitation, “said liquid driver.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction to “a liquid driver” is recommended. The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on Claim 1. 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. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan (US 2016/0157663 A1) in view of De ‘Longhi (US 2005/0139080 A1): PNG media_image1.png 787 730 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 797 704 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 706 714 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 946 712 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 830 662 media_image5.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 1: Radhakrishnan teaches a machine (“extraction assembly for use in an automatic espresso brewer” Abstract) for handling a flavouring ingredient (“beverage substance including but not limited to coffee, tea, herbs, botanicals “ [0022]) and preparing a beverage (“beverage” [0033]) therefrom and serving said beverage via a dispensing outlet (“Dispensing Line” Figure 2 Element 230 [0040]) to a consumer receptacle (“single cup” or “multiple cup containers” [0023]) including a mixing unit (Figure 1 All Elements) that comprises: a support, such as a frame and/or housing (“frame” [0017] Figure 1 Element 34), that is stationary during said handling of said flavouring ingredient (during brewing and ingredient pre-processing, the “frame” [is in] a stopped or parked position…[and] provides a relatively stable position for the brewing process” [0032]); a seat (Figure 1 Element 130 “cavity” [0028]) configured to received said flavoring ingredient unwrapped before mixing with said water (“pressurized water” [0033]); a closure part (Figure 1 Element 142 “face of the piston” [0027]) configured to close and open the ingredient opening (“mouth” Figure 1 Element 116 [0024]); a wall part (“piston” [0028] Figure 1 Element 52) that is movable inside the seat (the piston moves into and out of the seat [0028], the seat, the closure part and the wall part being: directly or indirectly mounted to the support (See figure 1), and relatively movable between: a transfer configuration (wherein the “piston is positioned outside of the brew chamber” [0024] to receive the brewing ingredient in the chamber)for supplying (“positioned for receiving a quantity of brewing substance” [0024]) said flavouring ingredient into the seat and removing such ingredient upon beverage preparation (“eject or dispose” of the waste ingredient [0036]); and a mixing chamber configuration (the piston is “engage[s]” [0030] with the seat (Figure 1 Element 130 “cavity” [0028]) and the closure part (Figure 1 Element 142 “face of the piston” [0027] to form a mixing chamber) in which the seat and the closure part and the wall part form a mixing chamber fluidically connected with the water source (“heated water system” [0021] Figure 1 Element 106), during beverage preparation, said flavouring ingredient being mixed with said water (“pressurized water” [0033]) in the mixing chamber to form said beverage prior to serving thereof via the dispensing outlet (“Dispensing Line” Figure 2 Element 230 [0040]) Radhakrishnan does not teach that the seat is configured to move relatively to the support according to simultaneous and successive geometric translation and geometric rotation. However, De ‘Longhi does teach a machine for producing a beverage (Abstract) wherein the seat (“container” [0044] Figure 1 Element 2) is configured to move relatively to the support (Figure 1 shows a frame or housing) according to simultaneous and successive geometric translation (“translation” [0073]) and geometric rotation (“rotation” [0073]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Radhakrishnan with the translation and rotation of De ‘Longhi in order to “realize a machine that can be washed easily and without the risk of damaging components [and in which] parts are easily accessible” [0009-0010]. Regarding Claim 2: Radhakrishnan as modified by De ‘Longhi further teaches that the seat (Figure 1 Element 130 “cavity” [0028] Radhakrishnan) is arranged to move relatively to the support (“frame” [0017] Figure 1 Element 34): by geometric translation without rotation into and out of the mixing chamber configuration (the piston is “engage[s]” [0030] with the seat (Figure 1 Element 130 “cavity” [0028]) and the closure part (Figure 1 Element 142 “face of the piston” [0027] to form a mixing chamber) and/or into and out of the transfer configuration; and by simultaneous geometric translation (“translation” [0073]) De ‘Longhi) and geometric rotation (“rotation” [0073] De ‘Longhi ) into and out of the transfer configuration (wherein the “piston is positioned outside of the brew chamber” [0024] to receive the brewing ingredient in the chamber)for supplying (“positioned for receiving a quantity of brewing substance” [0024]). Regarding Claim 3: Radhakrishnan as modified by De ‘Longhi further teaches that the seat (Figure 1 Element 130 “cavity” [0028] Radhakrishnan) has a first pivot (“pivot point” [0035] Radhakrishnan)and a second pivot (“pin” [0073] Figure 5 Element 7) spaced apart from the first pivot to move from the mixing chamber configuration to the transfer configuration(wherein the “piston is positioned outside of the brew chamber” [0024] to receive the brewing ingredient in the chamber and to “eject or dispose” of the waste ingredient [0036]). The remaining limitations of the claim are understood as intended use which do not further limit the claims. Regarding Claim 4: Radhakrishnan further teaches that the mixing unit comprises said wall part actuator (“motor” [0036] Figure 1 Element 80) that is connected to the wall part by a wall part transmission (“drive mechanism” [0037] and “lead screw” Figure 1 Element 74). Regarding Claim 5: Radhakrishnan further teaches that the support (“frame” [0017] Figure 1 Element 34) and the seat (Figure 1 Element 130 “cavity” [0028]) are connected by a guide-rail arrangement (“Upper beam” [0017] Figure 1 Element 64). Regarding Claim 6: Radhakrishnan further teaches that the mixing unit comprises a waste ingredient remover (“chute/wiper with a blade portion” which forms a drawer type configuration that “sweeps across” and thus deploys and retracts over the ingredient opening [0036]) configured to remove a waste ingredient from the ingredient opening (“eject or dispose” of the waste ingredient [0036]) Regarding Claim 7: Radhakrishnan further teaches that the mixing unit comprises a closure seal (“a leading edge” [ 0027] Figure 4 Element 154) which is located between the closure part (Figure 1 Element 142 “face of the piston” [0027]) and the seat (Figure 1 Element 130 “cavity” [0028]) when closed by the seat Regarding Claim 8: Radhakrishnan further teaches that the closure part (Figure 1 Element 142 “face of the piston” [0027]) comprises a peripheral sealing member (“sealing structure such as compressible gasket, O-ring or other device” Figure 1 Element 150) displaceably mounted on a closure holder ”annual groove” [0027] of the seat) and urged away from the holder against the seat (the first piston face moves downward and causes “outward” compression [0028]of the seal into the ”annual groove” [0027] of the seat during the extraction process) Regarding Claim 9: Radhakrishnan further teaches that after an introduction into the seat’s ingredient opening (“mouth” Figure 1 Element 116 [0024]) in the transfer configuration (wherein the “piston is positioned outside of the brew chamber” [0024] to receive the brewing ingredient in the chamber)of at least one solid portion of a self-supporting agglomerate of said flavouring ingredient (“beverage substance including but not limited to coffee, tea, herbs, botanicals “ [0022]) and subsequent relative movement from the transfer configuration into the mixing chamber configuration (the piston is “engage[s]” [0030] with the seat (Figure 1 Element 130 “cavity” [0028]) and the closure part (Figure 1 Element 142 “face of the piston” [0027] to form a mixing chamber) and prior to serving said beverage via the dispensing outlet, said control unit (“controller” [0020] Figure 1 Element 90) is configured to control a preconditioning of the flavouring ingredient (The controller of the invention controls the movement of the invention into each configuration and the processing of the ingredient when contained in the seat [0019]) by: a portion break-up relative movement of the seat and the closure part and the wall part (“compaction and compression” [0030]); and a portion loosening supply of water (“pressurized water” [0033]) from said water source (“heated water system” [0021] Figure 1 Element 106) into the mixing chamber. Regarding Claim 10: Radhakrishnan further teaches that the control unit (“controller” [0020] Figure 1 Element 90) is configured to control via said at least one actuator (“motor” [0036] Figure 1 Element 80) said break-up relative movement between the wall part (“piston” [0028] Figure 1 Element 52) and the closure part (Figure 1 Element 142 “face of the piston” [0027]) so as to exercise a compression force (“compaction and compression” [0030]) onto the solid portions between the closure and wall parts to break-up the solid portions (The controller of the invention controls the movement of the invention into each configuration and the processing of the ingredient when contained in the seat [0019]) Regarding Claim 11: Radhakrishnan further teaches that the control unit (“controller” [0020] Figure 1 Element 90), to control the preconditioning of the flavouring ingredient (“beverage substance including but not limited to coffee, tea, herbs, botanicals “[0022]), controls said liquid driver (“Inlet Lines” [0033] Figure 2 Element 220). Regarding Claim 12: Radhakrishnan as modified by De ‘Longhi further teaches a combination of [the machine of claim 1] and a flavoring ingredient (“beverage substance including but not limited to coffee, tea, herbs, botanicals “[0022] Radhakrishnan) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00. 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, Topaz Elliot can be reached at (571) 270-5851. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569. 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. /SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 23, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12543889
TRANSVERSELY-LOADABLE ROTISSERIE BASKETS FOR GRILLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12502020
Apparatus for Infusing a Liquid
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 2 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
20%
Grant Probability
0%
With Interview (-20.0%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 5 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