Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/068,911

Manufacture Modeling And Monitoring

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Dec 20, 2022
Examiner
KASENGE, CHARLES R
Art Unit
2116
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Etegent Technologies Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
1089 granted / 1290 resolved
+29.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1328
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
§103
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§102
43.3%
+3.3% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1290 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7/7/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 42 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kubli et al. U.S. PGPub 2012/0123579. Claim Objections Claim 43 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the Remarks filed 7/7/2025 the last portion of claim 43 is on the 1st Remarks page. The presented all claims should be presented on a page distinct from the Remarks. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 42 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kubli et al. U.S. PGPub 2012/0123579 (hereinafter “Kubli”). Regarding claim 42, Kubli discloses a method of monitoring the manufacture of a particular type of part by a manufacturing process including a plurality of manufacturing steps in a system including at least one processing unit and a memory, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of previously generated non-compliance reports (via loaded stored definitions of problem zones) corresponding to the manufacture of a plurality of respective parts of the type of part (e.g. ¶30 and 54), with the plurality of non-compliance reports indicating at least one visually detected defect (e.g. structural problem/failure, splitting, cracking) corresponding to a particular location on a particular part of the plurality of respective parts (e.g. ¶30, 39-45 and 54); aligning each visually detected defect from the plurality of compliance reports for the plurality of respective parts to at least one simulated location of a simulated model (e.g. visual representation of part) associated with at least a portion of a part of the type of part, wherein the at least one simulated location corresponds to the particular location on the type of part corresponding to the visually detected defect (e.g. ¶30, 39-45, 54 and 99-111; Fig. 3a-7); determining a plurality of aligned visually detected defects (i.e. splitting, cracking) that are aligned to at least one of a common simulated location on the simulated model or related simulated locations on the simulated model (e.g. ¶30, 39-45, 54 and 99-111; Fig. 3a-7); and analyzing the plurality of aligned visually detected defects on the same simulated model for the plurality of respective parts to determine whether a manufacturing problem is occurring in the manufacturing process of the particular type of part (e.g. ¶30, 39-45, 54 and 99-111; Fig. 3a-7). Regarding claim 43, Kubli discloses a method for monitoring the manufacture of a particular type of manufactured part by a manufacturing process in a system of the type that includes at least one processing unit and a memory, the method comprising: receiving a first set of data that comprises indications of potential problems (e.g. problem zones) at locations on parts of the particular type of manufactured part that is manufactured by the manufacturing process (e.g. ¶30, 39-45, 54 and 99-111; Fig. 3a-7); aligning the indications of the first set of data to a simulated model (i.e. visual respreentation of the part) associated with at least a portion of the type of part, including aligning each indication to a corresponding simulated location on the simulated model (e.g. ¶30, 39-45, 54 and 99-111; Fig. 3a-7); the step of aligning the data including the selection of an alignment algorithm and use of that alignment algorithm to transform the indication data into a coordinate system of the simulated model for locating the indication data on the simulated model (e.g. ¶30, 39-45, 54 and 99-111; Fig. 3a-7); receiving a second set of previously generated data that comprises indications of potential problems (e.g. stored definitions of problem zones) at locations on parts of the particular type of manufactured part that were previously aligned to the simulated model (e.g. ¶30, 39-45, 54 and 99-111; Fig. 3a-7); comparing the indications of potential problems in the first and second sets of data to find similar indications of potential problems (e.g. ¶30, 39-45, 54 and 99-111; Fig. 3a-7); generating a display representation (e.g. CAD/reference/design model) that visually represents the at least a portion of the simulated model and the indications of the first and second sets of data aligned to corresponding simulated locations of the at least a portion of the simulated model (e.g. pg. 1, ¶7-9; pg. 2-3, ¶19-30; pg. 3-4, ¶34-38 and 42-45; Fig. 1-7). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21-33 and 35-41 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record does not disclose receiving manufacturing data associated with the manufacturing process that includes at least one possible root cause problem associated with particular locations of the type of part; and associating the at least one possible root cause problem to at least one aligned indication of potential problems. The allowability, at least in part, resides in these facts. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” 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 CHARLES R KASENGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am to 4pm EST. 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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571) 272-2279. 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. CK October 15, 2025 /CHARLES R KASENGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 20, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 13, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Dec 20, 2023
Response Filed
Apr 03, 2024
Final Rejection — §102
Oct 08, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 16, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 13, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jul 07, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600264
THERMAL MANAGEMENT OF VEHICLE ENERGY STORAGE MEANS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596340
ELECTRONIC DEVICE CONTROLLING EXTERNAL DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590283
Hybrid Predictive Modeling for Control of Cell Culture
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586055
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR NEAR FIELD COMMUNICATIONS PAYMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579453
Safety Interlock Failure Prediction Method and Roll Production System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
84%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+12.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1290 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