Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/233,170

Foam Removal Attachment

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Aug 11, 2023
Examiner
ADDISU, SARA
Art Unit
3722
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Rock Road Company Sales LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
673 granted / 791 resolved
+15.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
810
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
37.4%
-2.6% vs TC avg
§102
34.0%
-6.0% vs TC avg
§112
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 791 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 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. Claim 9 recites the limitation "said first protrusion” and “said second protrusion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner believes “first protrusion” should be “first projection” and “second protrusion” should be “second projection”. 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)(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. Claims 1-3, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Labbe (USP 7,810,531) Regarding claim 1, Labbe discloses an attachment, said attachment comprising: a first end (1E: see below/23 of figure 2A); a second end (2E/24 of figure 2A); and an outer wall (28) with a plurality of projections (34) (col. 8, lines 26-41), each of said plurality of projections (34) having a passage (122) therethrough (figure 10 and col. 11, lines 1-8). Please note: Labbe’s tool/attachment is capable of removing foam. Regarding claim 2, Labbe discloses wherein each of said plurality of projections (34) extends radially from said outer wall (28) and said passage (122) or each of said plurality of projections does not pass through said outer wall (figure 2A, 5, 10, 11 & and col. 8, lines 26-41 & col. 11, lines 1-8). [AltContent: textbox (1E)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2E)][AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image1.png 595 548 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claims 3 and 4, Labbe discloses wherein said attachment comprises a shell (22) and a core. Labbe discloses “cutting head 20 is mounted longitudinally between two spaced apart housing sidewalls 1004 and 1006 and supported on bearing assemblies (not shown) for rotational motion about an axis of rotation `A-A” (col. 8, lines 15-19) and Examiner is defining the core to be the bearing assembly located between the shell and the shaft. Regarding claim 9, Labbe discloses an attachment for use with a tool having a rotating shaft (figure 2A), said attachment comprising: a core (Labbe discloses “cutting head 20 is mounted longitudinally between two spaced apart housing sidewalls 1004 and 1006 and supported on bearing assemblies (not shown) for rotational motion about an axis of rotation `A-A” (col. 8, lines 15-19) and Examiner is defining the core to be the bearing assembly located between the shell and the shaft), said core (i.e. bearing assembly) having an inner passage selectively attachable (selectively interpreted as with the shaft and without the shaft held by the bearing assembly) to said shaft and an outer profile (i.e. exterior); and a shell (22) comprising a cavity, an outer wall (28), a first projection (cutting tooth 500 indicated below as P1) with a first projection passage (shown as 122 in figure 10) and a second projection (cutting tooth 500 indicated below as P2) with a second projection passage (122), wherein: said core is received within said cavity (col. 8, lines 15-19); said first projection passage and said second projection passage (122) do not pass exterior or said outer wall (28) (col. 11, lines 1-8). [AltContent: textbox (Shaft)][AltContent: textbox (P2)][AltContent: textbox (P1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow] ++ PNG media_image2.png 700 788 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 14, Labbe discloses wherein said first protrusion/projection (P1) and said second protrusion/ (P2) are part of a plurality of protrusions arranged in a helical path around said outer wall of said shell (see figure above). Claims 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boyd et. Al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0254181). Regarding claim 15, Boyd discloses an attachment, said attachment (1100’) comprising: a cavity (1113’); an outer wall (1150); a first end (1130’); a second end (1120’), said second end having a second end wall (1121’) with a second end opening (O: see below) through said second end wall (1121’), said second end also having a primary slot (1112’), said primary slot being open to said second end opening and passing through said outer wall (see figure below); and a plurality of projections (P1/P2: see below) having a passage (P) therethrough extending from said outer wall (1150). Please note: Boyd’s invention is capable of removing foam. [AltContent: textbox (O)][AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image3.png 367 512 media_image3.png Greyscale [AltContent: textbox (Px)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (P)][AltContent: textbox (P2)][AltContent: textbox (P1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image4.png 368 529 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 18, Boyd discloses wherein said plurality of projections (P1/P2) are arranged in a helical path around said outer wall (as seen in figure above, the exemplary projection Px does not extend straight and has a helical path). Regarding claim 19, Boyd discloses wherein: said plurality of projections are a first plurality of projections (P1); and said attachment further comprises a second plurality of projections (P2) arranged in a second helical path around said outer wall (1150) (see figure above).. Regarding claim 20, broadly reading the claim, Boyd discloses the attachment (1110) having a core (i.e. the hollow interior 1160) (figure 1). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-8, 10-13, 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA ADDISU at (571) 272-6082. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (Mondays and Wednesday-Friday). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K. Singh can be reached on (571) 272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SARA ADDISU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 1/4/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 11, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599976
ROTARY CUTTING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594605
Material bar magazine for guiding material bars on an automatic lathe as well as a system consisting of such a magazine and automatic lathe
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583037
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF RE-PROFILING LOCOMOTIVE RAILCAR WHEELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576438
APPARATUS FOR THE ORBITAL CUTTING AND CALIBRATION OF TUBES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576449
PROCESSING TOOL
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
85%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+10.8%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 791 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