Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/274,329

ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE MACHINE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 26, 2023
Examiner
KERR, ELIZABETH M
Art Unit
3761
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Fanuc Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
175 granted / 274 resolved
-6.1% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+31.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
306
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
50.2%
+10.2% vs TC avg
§102
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
§112
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 274 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/26/2023 has been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 s 1 – 2 and 4 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (US 2019/0255637) in view of JP H0537422. Regarding claim 1, Yamasaki discloses an electrical discharge machine that performs electrical discharge machining on a workpiece in a liquid stored in a work-pan (“ electric discharge machine is configured to perform electric discharge machining on a workpiece in a working fluid stored in a work-pan ” [Abstract]) , the electrical discharge machine comprising: a pump configured to supply the liquid (Fig. 2, “pump P3”; “w orking fluid stored in the clear fluid tank 54 is pumped up by a pump P3 and supplied to the work-pan 42 through a second supply pipe 66 ” [0028]) ; an inlet pipe (Fig. 2, “supply pipe 66”) configured to introduce the liquid supplied by the pump into the work-pan (described above) ; and a through hole configured to penetrate a pipe wall of the inlet pipe (see annotated Fig. 2 , below , showing location of through hole, where inlet pipe 66 branches to pipe 72) , wherein the inlet pipe includes a pipe portion, and the through hole is provided in the pipe portion (see annotated Fig. 2) . Yamasaki does not expressly disclose wherein the inlet pipe includes a pipe portion that is higher than a maximum height of a water level allowed in the work-pan , and a through hole is provided in the pipe portion . JP H0537422 is directed to a “ Machining Fluid Discharge Device Of Electric Discharge Machine ” [Title]. JP H0537422 discloses wherein a pipe includes a pipe portion that is higher than a maximum height of a water level allowed in the work-pan , and a through hole is provided in the pipe portion ( Figs. 1 and 2, pipe 19; “ tank 19 having a height higher than the liquid surface of the working fluid of the reservoir tank 4 and the like is added to the working fluid supply tank 1 ” [Abstract]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the inlet pipe includes a pipe portion that is higher than a maximum height of a water level allowed in the work-pan , and a through hole is provided in the pipe portion . JP H0537422 describes that this configuration eliminates backflow, ultimately resulting in a machining fluid that can be discharged stably [Abstract]. Regarding claim 2, Yamasaki / JP H0537422 do not expressly disclose wherein the pipe portion is higher than an upper end of the work-pan. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the pipe portion is higher than an upper end of the work-pan. JP H0537422 describes that when the pipe portion is higher than the liquid surface of the working fluid, backflow is reduced. Given that the liquid level can be at the same level as an upper end of a work-pan (that is, when the work-pan is filled completely), and given JP H0537422’s disclosure that preventing backflow is advantageous, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to position the pipe portion at a location that is higher than an upper end of the work-pan . This way, if the work-pan is completely filled, backflow can still be prevented. Fig. 2 of Yamasaki, annotated Regarding claim 4 , Yamasaki / JP H0537422 do not expressly disclose wherein a cross-sectional area of the through hole is smaller than a cross-sectional area of a flow path of the pipe portion. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a cross-sectional area of the through hole is smaller than a cross-sectional area of a flow path of the pipe portion , because this would have been obvious to try. That is, there are three possible options for the relative cross-sectional area s of the through hole and the flow path of the pipe portion , namely: the c ross-sectional area of the through hole is (1) smaller than, (2) larger than, or (3) equal to the cross-sectional area of a flow path of the pipe portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select any of these options, with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 5 , Yamasak i discloses an outlet fluid storage tank configured to store the liquid flowing out from the through hole (Fig. 2, outlet fluid storage tank / “waste fluid tank 50” [0024]; Fig. 2 shows wherein liquid flows out from the through hole , then passes through pipe 72, into work-pan 42, and then is stored in waste fluid tank 50). Regarding claim 6 , Yamasaki discloses an outlet pipe (Fig. 2, pipe 72) connected to the inlet pipe (Fig. 2, supply pipe 66) and configured to guide the liquid flowing out from the through hole to the outlet fluid storage tank ( Fig. 2 shows wherein liquid flows out from the through hole, then passes through pipe 72, into work-pan 4 2, and then is stored in waste fluid tank 50) . Regarding claim 7 , Yamasaki / JP H0537422 do not expressly disclose wherein a cross - sectional area of a flow path of the outlet pipe is smaller than a cross-sectional area of a flow path of the inlet pipe. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a cross - sectional area of a flow path of the outlet pipe is smaller than a cross-sectional area of a flow path of the inlet pipe , because this would have been obvious to try. That is, there are three possible options for the relative cross-sectional area s of the flow path of the outlet pipe and the flow path of the inlet pipe , namely: the c ross-sectional area of the flow path of the outlet pipe (1) smaller than, (2) larger than, or (3) equal to the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the inlet pipe. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select any of these options, with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 8 , Yamasaki discloses a storage tank configured to store the liquid to be supplied by the pump (Fig. 2, storage tank / “clear fluid tank 54”) ; and a coupling pipe (Fig. 2, “convey pipe 58” [0024]) configured to couple the outlet fluid storage tank and the storage tank (Fig. 2; [0024], [0025]) . Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (US 2019/0255637) in view of JP H0537422, further in view of Kadokura (US 2017/0182574). Regarding claim 3, Yamasaki / JP H0537422 does not expressly disclose wherein the through hole is provided on a gravity direction side of the inlet pipe relative to a virtual center line passing through a cross-sectional center of the inlet pipe. Kadokura is directed to a wire electrode storage device for wire electrical discharge machine [Title]. Kadokura discloses wherein a through hole is provided on a gravity direction side of a pipe relative to a virtual center line passing through a cross-sectional center of the pipe (see annotated Fig. 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the through hole is provided on a gravity direction side of the inlet pipe relative to a virtual center line passing through a cross-sectional center of the inlet pipe . This is a known, alternative configuration of the location of the through hole, applied to a known apparatus, to achieve predictable results. Fig. 1 of Kadokura Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3073 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Steven Crabb can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5095 . 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. /ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604370
HIGH VOLTAGE CERAMIC ELECTRIC HEATING ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599267
Air circulating roaster
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601502
COOKING APPLIANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594615
WIRE ELECTRIC DISCHARGE MACHINING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583045
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMIC ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING WELDING PROGRAM PLANNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
64%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+31.7%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 274 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