Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/452,179

METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR FABRICATION OF LAYUP FOR COMPOSITE PART

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 18, 2023
Priority
Jul 31, 2023 — provisional 63/516,591
Examiner
SCHATZ, CHRISTOPHER T
Art Unit
1746
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The Boeing Company
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allowance Rate
511 granted / 818 resolved
-2.5% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
854
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
79.8%
+39.8% vs TC avg
§102
4.9%
-35.1% vs TC avg
§112
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 818 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/8/26 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: 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 of carrying out his invention. Claims 1, 3, 16, 19, 20, 22-24, 26-31, 34 and 76-78 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. The independent claims require “resuming the depositing of the at least one course of the plurality of tows for the current ply of the layup onto the substrate and/or for subsequent plies of the layup using the multi-lane automated fiber placement device.” This limitation, in the context of the other independent claim limitation is not support by the original specification. There is not support for “resuming” the depositing with multi-lane AFP in the context of depositing with the single lane AFP (as currently required by the independent claims) without first removing the multi-lane automated fiber placement device from the layup; providing the single-lane automated fiber placement device to the layup; removing the single-lane automated fiber placement device from the layup; providing the multi-lane automated fiber placement device to the layup. 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 1, 3, 16, 19, 20, 22-24, 26-31, 34 and 76-78 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. The independent claims require “resuming the depositing of the at least one course of the plurality of tows for the current ply of the layup onto the substrate and/or for subsequent plies of the layup using the multi-lane automated fiber placement device.” It is entirely unclear how “resuming” of the depositing with the multi-lane AFP occurs without first stopping the depositing with the multi-lane AFP. See new matter rejection above. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 2 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Holmes and Zieve disclose a method as detailed above and in section 15 of the Non-Final Rejection. However, neither Holmes, Zieve, nor any other prior art of record discloses or suggest that the resuming of the depositing of courses of the plurality of tows is performed by same the multi-lane AFP device that is re-provided after removal of the single lane AFP device, in the context of the other claim 2 limitations. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/26 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6. 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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. /CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 3 earlier events
Nov 25, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 23, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
May 04, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
May 04, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 04, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
May 08, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
May 12, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12679049
COMPOSITE MANUFACTURING METHOD AND TOOL
3y 1m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12679050
Vacuum Bag Sealing System
3y 1m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12679051
METHOD AND ARRANGEMENT FOR MANUFACTURING A COMPOSITE PART
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12683209
BATTERY TREATMENT METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12674229
Metal Mask
2y 11m to grant Granted Jul 07, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+26.6%)
3y 7m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 818 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