Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/392,225

DIRECTED ENERGY DEPOSITION COMPLIANT FIXTURES AND BUILD TABLE ASSEMBLIES INCLUDING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Dec 21, 2023
Examiner
KENNEDY, TIMOTHY J
Art Unit
1743
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
GE Avio S R L
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
660 granted / 929 resolved
+6.0% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
961
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
§112
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 929 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-23 are withdrawn. 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 6-10 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. Dependent claims are rejected due to their dependency. Claim 6 recites the limitation "wherein each fastener of the plurality of fasteners" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 6 should depend from claim 4. Claim 6 will be examined as if it was dependent on claim 4. Claim 8 recites the limitations "the plurality of fasteners" and “the upper nut” in the last two lines There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not state fasteners or nut, these first appear in claim 4. Claim 8 will be examined as if it was dependent on claim 4. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the upper nut" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is claim 8 only referring to one of the plurality of nuts (assuming claim 4 dependency) or to all the nuts used? Claim 8 is seen as vague and indefinite since it is unclear whether the stress accumulated in a tangential portion of the component is an actual value or a predicted value? Based on the specification the Applicant uses a predicted value, but the claim is written in such a manner as to include a real measured value. Since it is unclear as to which value can be used the claim is vague and indefinite. Claim 8 is seen as vague and indefinite since it is unclear whether the yield stress of the segments, fasteners, and nut are the yield stress of the material that makes up those parts, or is the yield stress of the parts themselves. These values will differ, and is important to know which value is used when determining such calculations. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (U.S. PGPub 2020/0070418; herein Wang, already of record). Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches: A base having an upper surface (Figure 1, base 1) A frame extending from the upper surface of the base, the frame defining an upper wall (Figures 1-5, cylindrical retractable platform seat 18) A rim formed on the upper wall of the frame (the top surface of seat 18) A plurality of fixture segments positioned on the rim opposite the upper wall of the frame, the plurality of fixture segments defining an arcuate build surface on which the component is built, the plurality of fixture segments spaced apart from one another (Figures 1-5, the platform 2 is made from plates 22 and 23, which sit on the top surface of seat 18 and form an arcuate build surface) Allowable Subject Matter Claim 2-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. This is based on the interpretation of claim dependency as discussed in the above 112 rejections. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.. 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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. /TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 21, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595214
HIGH TEMPERATURE COMPOSITES AND METHODS FOR PREPARING HIGH TEMPERATURE COMPOSITES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591175
SUBSTRATE TREATING APPARATUS AND SUBSTRATE TREATING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584244
MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR COLORED NONWOVEN FABRIC
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583178
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR STEREOLITHOGRAPHY THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576587
3D PRINTER FOR AUTOMATED SERIES PRODUCTION
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+17.3%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 929 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