Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/372,895

INJECTION METHOD OF INJECTION MEDIUM AND INJECTION SYSTEM OF INJECTION MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 26, 2023
Priority
Sep 30, 2022 — JP 2022-158722
Examiner
MCCONNELL, AARON R
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Sintokogio Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
45%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 45% of resolved cases
45%
Career Allowance Rate
90 granted / 199 resolved
-24.8% vs TC avg
Strong +54% interview lift
Without
With
+54.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
229
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
89.9%
+49.9% vs TC avg
§102
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
§112
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 199 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Status of Claims This action is in reply to the communications filed on 9/26/2023. The Examiner notes claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined; claim 9 has been withdrawn, see below for details. Election/Restrictions Claim 9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention 2 of the Requirement for Restriction/Election filed on 2/11/2026, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/13/2026. 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEGENMAJER et al. (US 20230286110) in view of KANDA (WO 2020067536 A1), hereinafter Legenmajer and Kanda, respectively. Regarding claim 1. Legenmajer discloses an injection method of injecting an injection medium to a workpiece with gas [Fig 1-2; ¶8; the method is of controlling the blasting system (i.e. injecting of an injection medium to a workpiece with gas], the injection method comprising: acquiring an injection state of the injection medium with respect to the workpiece [Fig 1-2; ¶10 & ¶13; The method acquires the control data which includes data relating to the blasting material (i.e. injection material)]; and injecting … the injection medium to the workpiece while controlling supplying of the gas on a basis of the injection state of the injection medium [Fig 3-4; ¶39; Table 2:RowA; the blasting material is injected. Legenmajer may not explicitly disclose injecting intermittently the injection medium. However Kanda discloses a blasting system [¶2 & ¶7 of the translation] that has an intermittent injection of the injection medium [Fig 3; & ¶10 of the translation; only one recess (31) is in the supply pipe (51) so the injection medium (3) is injected intermittently]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the injecting of injection material as disclosed by Legenmajer to have the injection material intermittently injected as taught by Kanda for the purpose of spraying a quantitative amount of injection material at a time to more finely control the injection process [Kanda: ¶7 & ¶10 of the translation]. Regarding claim 2. Legenmajer as modified teaches the injection method according to claim 1, wherein the injecting includes intermittently injecting the injection medium to the workpiece while adjusting at least one of a flow rate and a pressure of the gas to be supplied on a basis of the injection state of the injection medium [Legenmajer: ¶39; the flow rate and pressure of the gas can be adjusted]. Claim(s) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legenmajer in view of Kanda further in view of Nervi et al. (US 20140330525), hereinafter Nervi Regarding claim 3-4. Legenmajer as modified teaches the injection method according to claim 1, wherein: .. and the injecting includes intermittently injecting the injection medium to the workpiece while adjusting an injection time interval in injection of the injection medium per time on a basis of the injection state of the injection medium [Kanda: ¶42 of the translation; the rotation of recesses (31) on the roller (30) can be controlled to adjust the amount of injection material supplied per unit of time which would be adjusted per the monitoring and control system taught by Legenmajer]. Legenmajer as modified may not explicitly disclose wherein: the acquiring further acquires a residual stress value requested for the workpiece; and the injecting includes intermittently injecting the injection medium to the workpiece while adjusting an injection time interval in injection of the injection medium per time on a basis of the injection state of the injection medium and the residual stress value. However Nervi teaches a injection system which acquires a residual stress value requested for the workpiece [¶16, ¶147; the injection system can have pre-programed model of how the workpiece is to be processed to achieve a desired residual stress value]; and the injecting includes injecting the injection medium to the workpiece while adjusting an injection time interval in injection of the injection medium per time on a basis of the injection state of the injection medium and the residual stress value [¶16 & ¶147; the injection system can be adjusted in terms of intensity and time to achieve the desired residual stress in a workpiece]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the injection method as taught by Legenmajer to have acquiring further include acquires a residual stress value requested for the workpiece; and the injecting includes intermittently injecting the injection medium to the workpiece while adjusting an injection time interval in injection of the injection medium per time on a basis of the injection state of the injection medium and the residual stress value as taught by Nervi for the purpose of accurately controlling the induced residual stresses and to reduce or eliminate distortion in the workpiece [Nervi: ¶147]. 4. Legenmajer as modified teaches the injection method according to claim 2, wherein: the acquiring further acquires a residual stress value requested for the workpiece; and the injecting includes intermittently injecting the injection medium to the workpiece while adjusting an injection time interval in injection of the injection medium per time on a basis of the injection state of the injection medium and the residual stress value. Regarding claim 5-8. Legenmajer as modified teaches the injection method according to claim 1, wherein: the acquiring further acquires front surface information relating to a front surface state requested for the workpiece; and the injecting includes intermittently injecting the injection medium to the workpiece while adjusting an injection time interval in injection of the injection medium per time on a basis of the injection state of the injection medium and the front surface information. [Claims 5-8 claim “front surface information relating to a front surface state requested for the work piece” instead of claiming “a residual stress value requested for the workpiece.” However when measuring residual stresses after processing with shot peening, which is the Applicant’s invention as well as Nervi’s, the stresses are formed in the front surface or surface that was peened. The stresses in the surface are determined by measuring the front surface of the workpiece that was processed (Nervi: Fig 3-6; ¶69-¶71). Therefore claims 5-8 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 3-4]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (303)297-4608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1600 MST [0900-1800 EST] 2nd Friday 0700-1500 MST [0900-1700 EST]. 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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. /AARON R MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 26, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678834
ULTRASONIC CLEANING TOOL AND SYSTEM FOR CLEANING A SURFACE
3y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12677637
SUBSTRATE SUPPORT ASSEMBLY FOR SUBSTRATE TREATMENT APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12616345
NOZZLE FOR CLEANER
7y 0m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12617063
SHEET METAL HAMMER WITH DRIVE MANIPULATION FEATURE
2y 1m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12604972
HAIR BRUSH COMPRISING REMOVABLE AND REPLACEABLE BRISTLE PAD
3y 2m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
45%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+54.2%)
3y 2m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 199 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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