Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/292,445

FLOW RATE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jan 26, 2024
Examiner
LARKIN, DANIEL SEAN
Art Unit
2855
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Nippon Steel Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
913 granted / 1104 resolved
+14.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1129
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
33.6%
-6.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
§112
35.5%
-4.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1104 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 . Drawings The drawings were received on 09 March 2026. These drawings are acceptable. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 09 March 2026, with respect to claims 3-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 3-6 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments/arguments, filed 09 March 2026, with respect to claims 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 3-6 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn. 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 11-12 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. Newly added claims 11 and 12 recite limitations that are not expressly disclosed within the specification. Applicant argues that the limitations of claims 11 and 12 would be well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, pages 13-14; however, it is not clear whether or not this is true or not; and it is also unclear whether the inventors of the invention knew or were aware of the limitations that were added to the application prior to the filing of said application. Applicant has provided no evidence other than a conclusionary statement that they would have known about the limitations; and the Examiner argues that it is inappropriate to claim subject matter that is not expressly recited in the specification. With respect to the limitation of claim 11, some websites suggest that a soft magnetic material is a material having a coercivity less than 1000 A/m; and other websites suggest that soft magnetic material “typically” has a coercivity less than 1000 A/m, thus creating some inconsistency in the definition and the claim language. With respect to the limitations of claim 12, it is inappropriate to bring non-disclosed subject matter into the application. There is no way to determine what Applicant knew and when they knew it regarding this subject matter. Thus, it is the position of the Examiner that 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. Allowable Subject Matter The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: See Applicant’s arguments, pages 16-19, regarding the amendments made to independent claim 1. Claims 2-10 would be allowable based on their dependency from claim 1. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Claims 1-10 are allowed. 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 DANIEL SEAN LARKIN whose telephone number is 571-272-2198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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. /DANIEL S LARKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 26, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 09, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601720
LIVE-COLUMN VISUALIZATION CHROMATOGRAPHY FOR SEPARATION OF COMPOUNDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596112
EDIBLE OIL DETERIORATION LEVEL DETERMINATION DEVICE, EDIBLE OIL DETERIORATION LEVEL DETERMINATION SYSTEM, EDIBLE OIL DETERIORATION LEVEL DETERMINATION METHOD, EDIBLE OIL DETERIORATION LEVEL DETERMINATION PROGRAM, EDIBLE OIL DETERIORATION LEVEL LEARNING DEVICE, LEARNED MODEL FOR USE IN EDIBLE OIL DETERIORATION LEVEL DETERMINATION, AND EDIBLE OIL EXCHANGE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596041
VEHICLE PERFORMANCE TEST DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12578313
AIR MEASUREMENT METHOD USING GAS CHROMATOGRAPH AND GAS CHROMATOGRAPH ANALYSIS SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571710
MULTIFUNCTIONAL MICROPILLAR-ENABLED ACOUSTIC WAVE VISCOMETER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
83%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+7.7%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1104 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