Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/102,644

AUTOMATED PLATE SHAPING AND VERIFICATION

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 27, 2023
Examiner
ABOAGYE, MICHAEL
Art Unit
1733
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Huntington Ingalls Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
795 granted / 1054 resolved
+10.4% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+38.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1088
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
45.4%
+5.4% vs TC avg
§102
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
§112
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1054 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 09/23/2025 is acknowledged. The non-elected claims 17-20 have been withdrawn from prosecution in this application by Applicant in the response. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the specification page 9, para [0024], at the end of line 7 “the second surface 102” should be “the second surface 106”. The specification includes the use of the term “metal work piece”, however because in this instant case, the term is intended to mean a piece of material or metal worked upon by the disclosed apparatus, as per a plain dictionary definition, it is suggested to replace “metal work piece” with --metal workpiece--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 1-3, 5 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, the preamble includes “A system for automated plate shaping and verification”; however, the body of the claim appears to lack any structure for shaping and/or verification of the claimed metal workpiece. Claims 1-3, 5 and 14, includes the term “metal work piece”, however because in this instant case, the term is intended to mean a piece of material or metal worked upon by the claimed apparatus, as per a plain dictionary definition, it is suggested to replace “metal work piece” with --metal workpiece--. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-16 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. Claim 1, which is drawn to an apparatus recites multiple process steps and a computer processing component configured for executing the steps, namely determining an amount…, generating a plurality of candidate heating paths…, modeling an estimated deformation .., selecting a first candidate heating path.., and causing the heating element…; but does not recite any structures, that have structural cooperative relationship with or linked to the computer for performing said process steps. Furthermore, the term “configured” does not necessarily provide the claimed computer processing components with sufficient structure(s) for performing the claimed steps. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable. Claim 1, recites the phrases “determining an amount of deviation between a present shape of the metal work piece and a target shape” in line 8-9; and recites the phrase “modeling an estimated deformation of the metal work piece” in line 13. In particular, it is unclear from the manner in which the claim is set forth, how either of the deviation and deformation are imposed on the metal workpiece by the claim apparatus and also if any difference exit between the term “deviation” and “deformation”; thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the robotic arm" at the end of line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9, recites the limitation “a series of heating parameter”, however it is unclear what said limitation means and/or what constitutes said claimed heating parameters since said parameters are not defined in the claim; furthermore, the specification eventhough in para [0029], [0033] and [0036], refers to “heating parameters”, however it appears to provide no clear definition as to what constitutes parameters for the heating; thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In claims 11 and 12, the term “pattern type” renders the scope of the claim indefinite in that it has been held that adding the word “type” to an otherwise definite limitation/expression, extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Also see MPEP 2173.05(b). III.E. Art rejection Besides the rejecting under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre- AlA), second paragraph, presented above, the claims are free from art rejection. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wegener (US 6,601,426), Maeda (US 7,666,346), Nashiki (US 5,359,872), Park et al. (US 9,061,339) and Shimizu et al. (US 7,361,015) are also cited in PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM. 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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. /M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733 /JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 27, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601022
METHOD FOR SIMULTANEOUSLY INJECTING A FUEL GAS AND AN OXYGEN-RICH GAS INTO A UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595524
INDUCTION HARDENING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595529
Alkaline Oxidation Methods and Systems for Recovery of Metals from Ores
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589431
INTELLIGENT TEMPERATURE CONTROL METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DIE-CASTING DIE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578143
MOLTEN METAL FURNACE
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+38.3%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1054 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