Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/125,093

METHOD FOR INCREASING THE QUALITY OF GRAPHITE BALLS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 22, 2023
Priority
Jul 26, 2022 — LU 502566
Examiner
KESSLER, CHRISTOPHER S
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Henglilai New Materials Limited
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
2-3
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allowance Rate
472 granted / 792 resolved
-5.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
845
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
65.9%
+25.9% vs TC avg
§102
7.9%
-32.1% vs TC avg
§112
13.8%
-26.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 792 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 . Status of Claims Responsive to the amendment filed 11 August 2025, claims 1, 2 and 4 are amended and claim 6 is cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are currently under examination. Status of Previous Rejections Responsive to the amendment filed 11 August 2025, new grounds of rejection are presented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 now includes the limitation of “pouring the base molten iron into the base molten iron and nodularizing the base molten iron.” This language is not found in the specification and is new matter. There is not a disclosed step where the base molten iron is poured into the base molten iron in the specification. Each one of claims 2-5 and 7-11 depends from claim 1 and also includes the new matter. 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 1-5 and 7-11 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 now includes the limitation of “pouring the base molten iron into the base molten iron and nodularizing the base molten iron.” It is not clear what is happening in claim 1. How is the molten iron poured into the molten iron? Is this a reference to some step in the specification as filed? As written the point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. Each one of claims 2-5 and 7-11 depends from claim 1 and also is indefinite. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 11 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art, specifically Obata in view of Margaria and Olawale, fail to teach or suggest the claim limitations which include adding the rare earth metal to a nodularizer to cover a surface of the nodularizer and “pouring the base molten iron into the base molten iron and nodularizing the base molten iron.” It is not clear what this language means (see rejections above). New grounds of rejection are presented which are made final. 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 CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30. 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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. CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER Primary Examiner Art Unit 1734 /CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 22, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 27, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
May 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Aug 11, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 22, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jan 14, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12637731
STEEL SHEET HAVING EXCELLENT FORMABILITY AND STRAIN HARDENING RATE
3y 4m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12630909
Ferritic Stainless Steel Used for Bipolar Plates of Fuel Cells, Controlling Method of Surface Roughness, Method of Forming Passivation Films, and Use
3y 10m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12624425
Alloy Material, Alloy Product Formed of Alloy Material, and Mechanical Device Including Alloy Product
3y 1m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12623289
MULTI-FIELD-ASSISTED LASER MELTING DEPOSITION COMPOSITE ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM
2y 6m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12624428
IRON NITRIDE COMPOSITIONS
2y 6m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+14.9%)
3y 10m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 792 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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