Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/283,333

TURNING TOOL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 21, 2023
Examiner
ADDISU, SARA
Art Unit
3722
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Mitsubishi Materials Corporation
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

§103
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 Claims 1-3, 5-7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 in the reply filed on 1/23/26 is acknowledged. Claims 4, 8-11, 13, 16 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Please note: Applicant elected 1-7 and 12-20 without traverse which cover the first embodiment (figures 1-7) in the reply dated 1/23/26. However, claims 4, 13, 16 and 19 belong to the second embodiment, therefore claims 4, 13, 16 and 19 are also withdrawn from further consideration. 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. Claims 1-3, 7, 12, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0039219). Regarding claim 1, Imai discloses a turning tool comprising: a tool main body that extends along a tool axis and that has a pedestal at a tip portion (18); a cutting insert (20) that is detachably attached to the pedestal (figures 1 and 3); and a distance sensor (31/32) that is attached to the tool main body, Imai is silent about the sensor type. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of eddy current sensor is old and well known in the machining art for detecting proximity, displacement, positions etc. Regarding claim 2, Imai discloses wherein the distance sensor includes a first distance sensor (31) that takes a radially outer side of the tool axis as a measurement direction, and a second distance sensor (32) that takes an axial tip side of the tool axis as a measurement direction (figures 1-3 and paragraphs 74-84). Regarding claims 7, 17, 18 and 20, Imai discloses a communication unit (5) that is configured to transmit measurement data measured by the distance sensor to an outside (paragraphs 133 and 138). Regarding claims 3 and 12, Imai discloses the claimed invention (i.e. distance sensor 31/32) except for distance sensor being fixed by a first bracket (instead of being embedded). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the sensor attached by another piece/bracket, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to attach Imai’s sensor with an external bracket for the purpose of allowing serviceability, adjustability, and replacement with ease thus reduced down time. Claims 5, 6, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0039219) in view of Hashimoto et al. (WO 2020/171157). Imai discloses all aspects of the invention as set forth in the rejection above. Imai fails to disclose having an imaging device that is attached to the tool main body and that is configured to capture an image. Hashimoto discloses a turning tool having a sensor (9) (figure 2). Hashimoto also discloses that “the sensor (9) is not limited to the above embodiment, and other elements not particularly described above may be used as long as it may be possible to measure the physical values of the base 5 illustrated above. Examples thereof may include a camera and a microphone” (see USP 12,103,088, col. 5, lines 62-67 for English translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an imaging device on Imai’s tool, as taught by Hashimoto for the purpose of having multimodal measuring means and visual confirmation. 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 2/20/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 21, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (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