Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/530,549

TEST BENCH FOR SNUBBER

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 06, 2023
Examiner
PHAM, TOAN NGOC
Art Unit
2685
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Minetec S A
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
975 granted / 1130 resolved
+24.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
1148
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
§103
35.1%
-4.9% vs TC avg
§102
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
§112
13.6%
-26.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1130 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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Chile on 12/07/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chile 202203481 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 30, “a support” is believed to be “a vertical support”, claim 3, line 5 refers to “the vertical support”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, “the locking device (9)” should be “the safety device (9)”, which refers back to claim 1, line 22. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “the lateral edge (811a)” refers back to “a side edge (811a) in claim 1, line 11. It should be amended to “the side edge (811a). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6, “the axis (821)” refers back to “a shaft (821) in claim 1, line 15. It should be amended to “the shaft (821). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “the axis (821)” refers back to “a shaft (821) in claim 1, line 15. It should be amended to “the shaft (821). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 3, 6 and 7, “the device insurance (9)” should be “the safety device (9)”, which refers back to claim 1, line 22. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 11 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: It is unclear the “it” in line 1 refers to? Appropriate correction is required. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 3 and 6, the stem (244) refers back to “the rod (244) of claim 11, it should be amended to “the rod (244). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 25, “the insurance device (9)” should be amended to “the safety device (9)”, which refers back to claim 1, line 22. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the end of an arm" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the loads" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the load" and “the weight” in 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the insurance device" in line 33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner believed that it should be “the safety device”. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pressure" and “the brake” in line 37. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the angular velocity" in line 38. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the corresponding values" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the vertical support" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the joining area" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the axis" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the arc" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the gauge" and “the interior chambers” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the acceleration" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the rear part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the vertical support" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the lower part" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the path" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the eye" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the initial condition" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the operation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the end of an arm" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the upper end" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the pressure", “the brake chambers”, “the temperature” and “the fluid” in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the lower end" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the load" and “the weight” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the outer side" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the movement of the pendulum" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the potential energy" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the rotation" and “the brake shaft” in line 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 recites the limitation "the desired inclination" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the desired inclination" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the path of the pendulum" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the eye of the rod" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the acceleration" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the gauge" and the interior chambers” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the temperature in the fluid" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the acceleration" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 5, 6, 8-10 and 12-15 are also rejected for incorporating the above deficiency by dependency. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. -Makimoto et al. (US 7,516,646) discloses an apparatus for performing an impact test of an object of test by use of a hammer. -Ruth et al. (US 9,377,386) discloses an impact tester having a safety return arm. -Pilon (US 9,605,463) discloses a snubber for an excavating bucket. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN NGOC PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2967. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (7 AM - 3:30 PM). 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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. /TOAN N PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 11/18/25
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 06, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597347
ACTION SCHEDULE NOTIFICATION DEVICE FOR VEHICLE AND ACTION SCHEDULE NOTIFICATION METHOD FOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591310
PSEUDO HAPTIC SENSE PRESENTATION APPARATUS, PSEUDO HAPTIC SENSE PRESENTATION METHOD, AND PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589278
MEASUREMENT APPARATUS AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584898
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CHARACTERIZING, DETECTING, AND MONITORING PATHOGEN POPULATIONS IN AN INDOOR ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580986
METHOD FOR MANAGING A COMMUNICATING METER
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
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.4%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1130 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