Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/117,609

WORKPIECE HOLDING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 06, 2023
Examiner
ABOAGYE, MICHAEL
Art Unit
1733
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Aktiebolaget SKF
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

§102 §103 §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 1-15) in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged. The non-elected group II (claim 160 has been withdrawn from prosecution in this application. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the setting device of the clamping unit recited in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are also objected to because in figure 1, the corresponding claim ping unit (8-2) of the support unit (12-3) must be (8-3) as illustrated in the specification para [0071]- [0072] for example. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 2, lines 3, it suggested to replace “the drive” with --the drive unit--. For claim language consistency. In claim 4, line 3, It is suggested to replace “the rotational axis clamping element being” with -- a rotational axis of the clamping element being--. 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 4-15 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. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the clamping element is configured as a rotatable clamping element configured to abut against the workpiece" in lines 2-3. It is unclear from the manner in which the claim is written if each clamping element of the at least two clamping units recited in the base claim 1 is configured as a rotatable clamping element. Particular, since it appears neither the specification nor figure 5, provides any clear support for all the clamping elements as being configured as a rotatable clamping element as the claim appears to suggest. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite (i.e., at least on the basis of claim 1) since the scope is unascertainable. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the rotational axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Menig et al. (DE102018212778, also see the Espacenet English Machine Translation Version “EEMTV” (IDS). Regarding claim 1, Menig et al. teaches a workpiece holding device (i.e., workpiece fixture 100, see figures 1a &1b, and “EEMTV”: para [0001]-[0002]) for holding a workpiece (i.e. bearing ring 4, see1a &1b, and “EEMTV”: para [ 0037], also see para [0001]-[0005], [0007]) having a substantially radial inner surface and a substantially radial outer surface (see figure 1b) in a heat treatment system while the workpiece undergoes a thermal expansion and/or contraction (see “EEMTV”: para [ 0003], [0011]) the workpiece holding device (100, see figure 1a &1b) comprising: at least two clamping units (i.e., holding devices 20,30 &40, see figure 1a & 1b, and “EEMTV”: para [0038]) configured to apply a radial clamping force to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position (see figure 1a & 1b, and “EEMTV”: para [0007]), each of the at least two clamping units (i.e., holding devices 20,30 &40, see figure 1a & 1b) including a clamping element (i.e., holding elements 23, 33 &43, see figure 1a & 1b and para [0038]-[0039] also see para [0012]) configured to abut against the radially inner surface and/or against the radially outer surface of the workpiece (see figure 1a) and to apply a radial clamping force (see “EEMTV”: para [0038]-[0039] to the workpiece (4, see figures 1a &1b). Regarding claim 3, Menig et al. teaches a workpiece holding device (i.e., workpiece fixture 100, see figures 1a &1b 2) in which the clamping element (i.e., holding elements 23, 33 &43, see figure 1a & 1b and para [0038]-[0039] also see “EEMTV”: para [0012]) are attached or mounted or a slide or carriage (21, 31 & 41, see figure 1a and “EEMTV”: para [0038], which reads on the claimed slide shoe), wherein a contact surface of said slide or carriage (21, 31 & 41) abuts against the radially inner surface and/or radially outer surface, and having a curvature adapted to a curvature of the radially inner surface and/or the radially outer surface (see in figure 1a). Menig et al., therefore substantially meets all aspects of the claim. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pauls (US Patent No. 3,727,772). Regarding claim 1, Pauls teaches a workpiece holding device (see abstract, figures 1, 3 and 4 and column 3, lines 25-65) for holding a workpiece (i.e. elongated tubular workpiece 55, see figures 1 and 3, and column 4, lines 1-15 and lines 60-68) having a substantially radial inner surface and a substantially radial outer surface (see in figures 1 and 3, the elongated tubular workpiece is characterized as such) in a machining system in which the workpiece undergoes a reasonable amount of thermal expansion due to the heat generated during machining, the workpiece holding device comprising: at least two clamping units (i.e., holder 2 and 5, see figures 1, 3 and 4 and column 3, lines 25-65) configured to apply a radial clamping force (see the workpiece 55 is tubular shaped and hence radially clamped, see figures 1,3 and 4) to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position, each of the at least two clamping units (2 and 5) including a clamping element i.e., each one of the clamping jaws of claws 1 and 7 associated with holders 2 and 5 respectively ,see figures 1, 3 and 4 and column 3, lines 25-65) configured to abut against the radially inner surface and/or against the radially outer surface of the workpiece and to apply a radial clamping force to the workpiece (see figures 1 , 3 and 4). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menig et al. (DE102018212778, also see the Espacenet English Machine Translation Version “EEMTV” (IDS) as applied to claim 1 above. Regarding claim 2, Menig et al. teaches a workpiece holding device (i.e., workpiece fixture 100, see figures 1a &1b 2) including drive unit (see “EEMTV”: para [0032]) configured to rotate the workpiece held in the workpiece holding device by being abutted against the workpiece to allow the workpiece to frictionally rotate therewith said drive unit. Menig et al. is silent about the specifics of the structure of the dive unit and therefore fails to expressly teach a drive unit comprising a friction wheel or a friction roller configured to abut against the workpiece and such that a rotation of the friction wheel or the friction roller is frictionally imparted to the workpiece in the manner as claimed. However, boweverHowevceecause the drive unit of Menig et al. is also configured to abut with the workpiece to allow the workpiece to rotate therewith, would reasonable be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made as being functionally equivalent to the claimed drive unit; and therefore, constitutes a substitutable alternative. Furthermore, no new or unexpected results have been shown to arise from the use of the claimed drive unit; and hence as it is well settled that where, as in the instant case, no new or unexpected results have been shown to arise therefrom, motivation to modify the configuration of a component already shown by the applied prior art, would have been a modification obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Also see MPEP 2144.04 IV B. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Menig et al. differs from the instant claimed invention by failing to teach and/or adequately suggest workpiece holding device comprising at least two clamping units with each clamping unit including a clamping element; wherein one of the clamping elements is configured as a rotatable clamping element and configured to abut against the workpiece, and a rotational axis of the clamping element being configured substantially parallel to an axis of rotation of the workpiece. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Regele (US4,459,4510 and Maurer (US 11,154,938) 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

Mar 06, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §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