Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/376,402

AUTONOMOUS AI QUALITY INSPECTION SYSTEM FOR MANUFACTURED OBJECTS

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Oct 03, 2023
Examiner
KASENGE, CHARLES R
Art Unit
2116
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Techolution Consulting LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
1089 granted / 1290 resolved
+29.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1328
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
§103
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§102
43.3%
+3.3% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1290 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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hutchens U.S. PGPub 2025/0078514. 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 4 and 10 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 4 recites the limitation "the QC system" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the QC system" in lines 3-4. 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. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchens U.S. PGPub 2025/0078514 (hereinafter “Hutchens”) in view of Nygaard et al. U.S. PGPub 2020/0363342 (hereinafter “Nygaard”). Regarding claims 1 and 8, Hutchens discloses a system for autonomous AI quality inspection of manufactured objects (e.g. tools), comprising: a) an edge gateway (e.g. Fig. 5, #565) connected to a high-resolution camera (e.g. Fig. 1, #41; Fig. 5, #520) for capturing images of the objects (e.g. ¶53, 114-123); b) a cloud server comprising a computer vision algorithm for detecting and processing the images, and calculating from the images key characteristics data (e.g. dimensions) of the objects (e.g. ¶14, 102, 106-108, 195-199, 320, 324-325 and 331); c) a user dashboard for displaying the key characteristics data and enabling quality control checks to be performed in real-time (e.g. ¶331 and 335-336); and d) an automated QC report generator for producing reports that meet regulatory requirements (e.g. ¶314, 410, 439, 443, 448 and 457). Regarding claims 1 and 8, Hutchens does not explicitly disclose the key characteristics being length, thread diameter, neck diameter, and head profile diameter. Regarding claim 2, Hutchens discloses using a high precision algorithm (e.g. ¶131 and 413), but does not explicitly disclose the precision level being up to 0.01 mm. Regarding claim 3, Hutchens discloses the objects being tools, but does not explicitly disclose the objects including nuts, bolts, screws and nails. Regarding claims 1 and 8, Nygaard discloses a computer vision system obtaining key characteristics that include length, thread diameter, neck diameter, and head profile diameter (e.g. ¶139, 217, 225 and 254). Regarding claim 2, Nygaard discloses the computer vision system having an accuracy and precision level of up to 0.01 mm (e.g. ¶172). Regarding claim 3, Nygaard discloses the objects comprising fasteners comprising nuts, bolts, screws, and nails (e.g. ¶5 and 213). At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to additionally include fasteners for Hutchens’ quality control system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since fasteners are tools that are typically provided in a tool box and would ensure the user has quality fasteners to use with the other tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hutchens with Nygaard to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1-11. Regarding claims 4 and 10, Hutchens discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is dynamically adaptable for different types of manufacturing objects (e.g. ¶90, 93, 96 and 191) through a one-time onboarding process wherein a user inputs product details into the QC system (e.g. ¶278-279). Regarding claims 5 and 11, Hutchens discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system performs quality control checks for multiple manufacturing objects simultaneously (e.g. ¶308, 314 and 397). Regarding claims 6 and 10, Hutchens discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising database for storing manufacturing object details and for dynamically adapting the system to different types of manufacturing objects by a one-time onboarding process (e.g. ¶402 and 404). Regarding claims 7 and 9, Hutchens discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the cloud server is further configured to remove the background of the images of the objects (e.g. ¶287), fetch edges and points of the objects, and detect color characteristics of the objects (e.g. ¶105-106, 127 and 202). 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 CHARLES R KASENGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am to 4pm 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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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. CK April 4, 2026 /CHARLES R KASENGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 03, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 15, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600264
THERMAL MANAGEMENT OF VEHICLE ENERGY STORAGE MEANS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596340
ELECTRONIC DEVICE CONTROLLING EXTERNAL DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590283
Hybrid Predictive Modeling for Control of Cell Culture
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586055
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR NEAR FIELD COMMUNICATIONS PAYMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579453
Safety Interlock Failure Prediction Method and Roll Production System
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+12.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1290 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