Office Action Predictor
Application No. 18/320,205

COIL HOLDING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
May 19, 2023
Examiner
TRINH, MINH N
Art Unit
3729
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

86%
Career Allow Rate
1279 granted / 1492 resolved
Without
With
+10.1%
Interview Lift
avg trend
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
54 pending
1546
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§102
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
§112
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§102 §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 Claims 1-3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: Since the scope of the claims drawn to “an apparatus” as indicated in the preamble (see claim 1, line 1). In formulate the rejection on the merit the Examiner presumes that the claims directed to an apparatus and its elements and claims will be rejected accordingly. “, comprising” (claim 1, line 2) should be updated to: --“, the coil holding apparatus comprising:” --, for clarity of the transition terms. In line 1 of claims 2-3, "Claim" should not be capitalized. 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 1-3 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. The phrases: “for laying a concentrated wound cassette coil in which a wire is laminated in multi layers,”(preamble of claims 1-3) is intended use which does not further limit the claimed apparatus. “configured to support the concentrated wound cassette coil” (claim 1, line 3-4) similar to the above considered to be intended use. Scope of the claim 2 is unclear since the claims directed to an apparatus and claim 2 recites of: ”wherein the concentrated wound cassette coil and its structure thereto ” (see lines 1-3 of claim 2) which made scope of the claim unclear (note that the concentrated wound cassette coil is a separate entity than the claimed apparatus which raise 112 issues). “configured to cause the supporting parts to move . . .”(see claim 3, lines 2-4) is also considered to be functionally intended use. Note: The office hereby notes the phrase(s)”configured to” do not limit a claim to a particular structure but rather makes optional and does not denote how features are structurally associated. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being By J.K. Wood (2412852). J.K. Wood discloses the broadly claimed coil holding apparatus for laying a concentrated wound cassette coil in which a wire is laminated in multi layers, comprising a plurality of supporting parts 8/14 configured to support the concentrated wound cassette coil, wherein the plurality of the supporting parts 8/14 include a first supporting part having a first height in the vertical direction and a second supporting part having a second height different from the first height in the vertical direction (see Fig. 2, which depicts the include a first supporting part 8/14 (left side support) having a first height in the vertical direction and a second supporting part 8/14 ((right hand side support having a second height different from the first height in the vertical direction). PNG media_image1.png 276 506 media_image1.png Greyscale Limitations of claims 2-3 as best understood are also met by the J.K. Wood as applied above. Note that the Examiner only considers the structure inventive features of the claimed apparatus as parts of the formulated rejection above. 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. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al (20140175248) in view of J.K. Wood. Fan et al discloses the claimed coil holding apparatus, comprising a plurality of supporting parts 30’s, 40 configured to support the concentrated wound cassette coil, wherein the plurality of the supporting parts 30’s, 40 include a first supporting part having a first height in the vertical direction and a second supporting part having a second height different from the first height in the vertical direction (see Fig. 1, which depicts a first supporting part 30 (left side support) having a first height in the vertical direction and a second supporting part 30 (right hand side support having a second height different from the first height in the vertical direction by adjusting the support 30). PNG media_image2.png 340 516 media_image2.png Greyscale If argues that the Fan et al does not teach the height different of the supports 30’s. then Applicant(s) refers to J.K. Wood (see Fig. 2) for the height configured to different between the supports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the J.K. Wood’s teaching as noted above onto invention of Fan in order to form the holding apparatus by utilizing the known and available concepts. The motivation for the combination can be obtained by either reference (see ¶ [0004]) of the Fan reference. Limitations of claims 2-3 as best under stood are also met by the Fan et al (see Fig. 1). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30. 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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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. /MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 mt
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 19, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Mar 26, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12597832
METHOD FOR LAMINATED CORE OF ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597833
COOLING APPARATUS FOR LAMINATED MOTOR CORE MANUFACTURING PROCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587075
GENERATOR ROTOR CENTERING JIG
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586971
WIRE STRIPPING DIE FOR CRIMPING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579401
METHODS FOR PRODUCING RECYCLABLE RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION TRANSPONDER COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate 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
86%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+10.1%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1492 resolved cases by this examiner