Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/207,270

CUTTING INSERT

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Jun 08, 2023
Examiner
WILSON, LEE D
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
1458 granted / 1824 resolved
+9.9% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1858
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§102
48.9%
+8.9% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1824 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Claim Objections Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a user” in claim 14, line 3. The correct term is “an”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. The following claims are vague, indefinite, awkwardly, confusingly worded and/or lacking proper antecedent basis: “configured to fit within a rim of food container” in claim 1. The food container is not part of the cutting inseat. Futhermore, the insert has a definite size and shape and there will always be a container that can be found to be bigger than the inseart.. The claim is indefinite because it is defined with respect to a part which is not part of the invention. “a user” in claim 14, line 3. The correct term is “an” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1- 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Noto 2022/0304520 A1. Noto disclose the claimed invention as recited in the claims as shown: 1. A cutting insert designed for fitting in a food container (110 is a food container) lid, the cutting insert 100 comprising: an upward facing surface 132 and downward 142 facing surface; a perimeter that extends between the upward facing surface and the downward facing surface. 2. The cutting insert of claim 1, wherein the upward facing surface and the downward facing surface are substantially planar. See Fig.3 3. The cutting insert of claim 1, wherein the cutting insert is of a predetermined shape; 10 and wherein the predetermined shape is selected from a group comprising a square, rectangle, circle, or oval. See Fig.3 4. The cutting insert of claim 1, wherein the cutting insert is designed to have a predetermined thickness defined between the upward facing surface and downward facing surface. See Fig.3 15 5. The cutting insert of claim 1, wherein the downward facing surface is concave 140; and wherein the depression 134 is centered at the center of the downward facing surface and conforms to the shape of the downward facing surface. 6. The cutting insert of claim 1, wherein the downward facing surface is concave; and wherein the depression is centered at the center of the downward facing surface and the shape of the depression id selected from a group comprising a square, rectangle, circle, or oval. See Fig.3 7. The cutting insert of claim 1, wherein the downward facing surface is coated with, or fashioned of, a material having a high coefficient of friction. This is an judgement on a material since the is not known meaning it can be any material. 8. The cutting insert of claim 1, wherein the perimeter is coated with, or fashioned of, a material having a high coefficient of friction. This is an judgement on a material since the is not known meaning it can be any material. 9. The cutting insert of claim 1, wherein the upward facing surface comprises at least one groove 138 formed proximal to, and along, at least one portion of a perimeter of the upward facing surface. 10. The cutting insert of claim 1, wherein the upward facing surface comprises an arcuate groove 138 formed proximal to, and along, a perimeter of the upward facing surface. 11. The cutting insert of claim 1, wherein the cutting insert comprises at least one aperture 138 proximal to said cutting insert perimeter; the at least one aperture sized to receive one or more fingers of a user for installing and removing said cutting insert from the food container lid. 12. The cutting insert of claim 1, wherein at least one side of the perimeter comprises at least one indentation; the at least one indentation sized to receive one or more fingers of a user for installing and removing said cutting insert from the food container lid. See Fig.3 13. The cutting insert of claim 12, wherein the cutting insert is a square or a rectangle, two sides of the cutting insert, which are opposing and substantially parallel, each comprise said at least one indentation. See Fig.3 14. The cutting insert of claim 1, wherein at least one side of the downward facing surface comprises at least one indentation positioned at its edge; the at least one indentation sized to receive one or more fingers of a user for installing and removing said cutting insert from the food container lid. See Fig.3 15. The cutting insert of claim 14, wherein the cutting insert is a square or a rectangle, two sides of the downward facing surface, which are opposing and substantially parallel, comprise said at least one indentation. See Fig.3 16. A method of using the cutting insert of claim 1 to store and cut food, comprising the steps of: a) placing the cutting insert inside the food container’s lid so that the cutting insert is within the perimeter of the lid’s inner rim; b) placing a food item on the cutting insert; c) releasably securing the food container lid to the food container body wherein food container is in an upside-down position, and thus storing the food inside the food container; d) as needed, releasing the food container body from the food container lid to cut food placed on the cutting insert or to remove the cutting insert and food placed upon it from the food container lid. This the natural use of the claimed invention as recited above and the claims stand and fall together. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Applicant has amended the claims in order to place them in condition for allowance. The 112 address the amendment in that the container is not part of the invention and the insert can be fit into a container because the device has a size and there is always a container bigger or smaller. 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 LEE D WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4499. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6;30-4;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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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. LEE D. WILSON Examiner Art Unit 3723 Ldw /LEE D WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 March 12, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 08, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Sep 25, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599789
RESCUE ACCESS WEDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595849
SEAL RING INSTALLATION MODULE AND SEAL RING INSTALLATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589976
LIFTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583068
Clamping Arrangement
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12564923
MOUNTING TOOL FOR POSITIONING A SHAFT SEALING RING ON A SHAFT AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A SHAFT SEAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+18.6%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1824 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month