Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/317,194

ROUND BAR CUTTING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
May 15, 2023
Examiner
SNYDER, ALAN W
Art Unit
3722
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Super Power Tools Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
561 granted / 679 resolved
+12.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
715
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 679 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: ‘pass through in axial direction’ at Line 2 contains a minor grammatical error and should read, ‘pass through in an axial direction. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-7 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axis X" in Line 7. The axis X has not been established, and therefore there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray (US 3234974) in view of Brown (US 4553575). Regarding claim 1, Ray discloses a round bar cutting device including a tool rest 12. The tool rest is axially penetrated by a perforation 22 allowing a round bar to pass through in an axial direction. The tool rest has a front side 28 and a back side 26, the perforation extending to the front and back sides. A virtual axis is defined to pass through the radial center of the perforation in the extension direction of the perforation. Four planer tools 34 protrude forward from the front side, the planer tools being spaced apart around the axis as the center. A first edge 42 is formed on one side of each planer tool and faces an X axis (depending on how the tool is held) so as to cut a square bar which moves towards the perforation among the planer tools and rotates round the axis to form the round bar (see e.g. Fig. 1). The round bar passes through the back side and leaves the perforation. Ray does not disclose the particular cutting edge geometry claimed. Brown discloses a similar round bar cutting device, wherein four planer tools are provided, wherein the cutting edges 58c form an angle with the axis A of the tool, such that the distance between each first edge and the axis in the diameter direction of the perforation/through hole increases from one end of each first edge close to the front side (i.e. the bottom of the tool) to the other end of the first edge so as to guide the square bar to the midst of the first edges along the axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the first edges of the planer tools of Ray in the angular arrangement taught by Brown in order to better guide the workpiece through the cutting edges during operation. Regarding claim 5, Ray discloses the device including a mounting base 16 which is penetrated by a mounting hole, the tool rest being disposed in the mounting hole (see Fig. 3). Regarding claim 7, Ray discloses the device including a guide piece 18, one end of which is connected to the mounting base. The guide piece is provided with a guide plate 74 towards the front side of the tool rest. The guide plate is penetrated by a guide hole 64 along the axis. The axis passes through the radial center of the guide hole, and the distance is smaller than or equal to the radius of the guide hole (see Fig. 3). Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray (US 3234974) in view of Brown (US 4553575) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wellman (US 0326000). Regarding claims 2-4, neither Ray nor Brown disclose the claimed cambered walls, second edges and/or flutes. Wellman discloses a similar round bar cutting device, wherein the tool rest C forms several cambered hole walls and flutes spaced apart around the perforation on the axis with a second edge E’ formed on one side of the intersection of each hole wall and the flutes in the circumferential direction of the perforation. The radius between the second edges and the axis is smaller than the minimum value of the distance (see Fig. 6, the distance being the closest distance between the stepped cutting edges) so that the second edges cut the radial periphery of the round bar. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of claim 1 by incorporating the second edges and flutes/cambered walls taught by Wellman, in order to cut the round bar to the final dimension cleanly and to allow chips/debris enough space to be evacuated from the cutting area so as not to damage the workpiece. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray (US 3234974) in view of Brown (US 4553575) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Newton (US 2584492). Regarding claim 6, neither Ray nor Brown disclose the claimed plane and propping bolt. Newton discloses a similar round bar cutting device, wherein two elements 11 and 12 are joined in a coaxial arrangement, and a propping bolt 29 is screwed radially inward, ensuring the two elements do not rotate with respect to each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teaching of the propping bolt of Newton into the device of claim 5, such that a plane is formed on a portion of the radial periphery of the tool rest and a propping bolt is screwed through the mounting base, abutting said plane, so as to position and lock the tool rest in place such that it does not rotate during use. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Degen (US 2681086), Samsky (US 2545931), Hancharik (US 2529018), Brown (US 2049685) and Kovatsch (US 0620152) all disclose elements of, or similar to the instant invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p. 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 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 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. /Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 15, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583036
Conduit Reamer
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576453
MACHINING SYSTEM AND CUTTING INSERT AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569953
CONTROL DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD FOR MACHINE TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12544838
CUTTING ELEMENT AND THE USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539544
BORING TOOL AND CUTTING INSERT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+10.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 679 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