Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/427,250

PORTABLE AND MODULAR PRODUCTION ELECTROPLATING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §112§DOUBLEPATENT§DP
Filed
Jan 30, 2024
Priority
Apr 05, 2016 — provisional 62/318,391 +3 more
Examiner
CHUNG, HOSUNG CHARLES
Art Unit
1794
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
SNAP-ON Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allowance Rate
283 granted / 478 resolved
-5.8% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+37.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
505
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
87.0%
+47.0% vs TC avg
§102
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§112
5.3%
-34.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 478 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DOUBLEPATENT §DP
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 Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. 1. The two instances of the term “proximal” were not in the original disclosure and are thus new matter. 2-9. These claims are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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. Claims 1-9 are 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, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. 1. The term "proximal" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. This term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. MPEP § 2173.05(b). 2-9. These claims are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,294,759 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 10,294,759 B2’s claims subject matter still teach the claimed invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hosung Chung whose telephone number is (571) 270-7578. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday, 9 AM - 6 PM CT. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached on (571) 272-8902. 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. /HOSUNG CHUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2024
Application Filed
May 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112, §DOUBLEPATENT, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12680179
ELECTROLYSIS STACK
3y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12674237
HYDROGEN SUPPLY SYSTEM
4y 3m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12674248
PLATING APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD FOR PLATING APPARATUS AND NONVOLATILE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM
3y 6m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12671090
BINDER COMPOSITION FOR ALL-SOLID-STATE SECONDARY BATTERY, SLURRY COMPOSITION FOR ALL-SOLID-STATE SECONDARY BATTERY, SOLID ELECTROLYTE-CONTAINING LAYER, AND ALL-SOLID-STATE SECONDARY BATTERY
3y 2m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12662741
Hydrogen Generator
3y 3m to grant Granted Jun 23, 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
59%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+37.8%)
3y 0m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 478 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