Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/399,016

METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PREDICTING FATIGUE ACCUMULATION

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 28, 2023
Examiner
FENWICK, WARREN K
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Ge-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
567 granted / 633 resolved
+21.6% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
646
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 633 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/28/2023 and 06/17/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, each IDS is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 20 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 13. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Reasons for Allowance The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance. The primary reason for allowance of claims 1 - 12 is the prior art made of record neither shows or discloses the claim language found in claim 1, for a method of identifying at least one critical location on a physical structure, the method comprising: receiving operational information, the operational information being information related to an operation of the physical structure, the operational information including different time instances of the operation of the physical structure and the operation of the physical structure at different operational levels, the operational levels relating to levels of output from the physical structure, at least a portion of the operational information being received from sensors sensing a condition of the physical structure; predicting damage to the physical structure based on the operational information, predicted operation of the physical structure with at least one of the different operational levels, and at least one model of the physical structure such that initiation of the damage at a plurality of locations of the physical structure is predicted independent of a proximity of the sensors to each of the plurality of locations. Most notably, for a method of identifying at least one critical location on a physical structure, the method, further comprising identifying the at least one critical location on the physical structure based on the predicted damage, in combination with all of the other claim limitations presented, in total. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance." 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. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The limitation “processing circuit” lacks the element of a non-transitory computer readable medium, as recited in lines 1 and 2 of claim 20. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 14 - 19 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. Regarding claims 14 - 19, the prior art made of record neither shows nor suggests the claimed limitations. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WARREN K FENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-3040. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday. 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, Walter L. Lindsay, Jr. can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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. /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852 WKF
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 28, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 19, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601412
DURABILITY TESTING APPARATUS FOR WATER DRAINAGE FLAP, AND TESTING METHOD USING THE DURABILITY TESTING APPARATUS FOR WATER DRAINAGE FLAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596179
SENSOR MOUNTING ASSEMBLY IN VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590869
SYSTEM, APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ESTIMATING REMAINING USEFUL LIFE OF AT LEAST ONE BEARING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581193
IMAGING APPARATUS, OPERATION METHOD OF IMAGING APPARATUS, AND PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574642
COMPACT FOLDED TELE CAMERAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
90%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+0.2%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 633 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