Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/535,606

Hybrid Gettering Diffusion Pump

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Dec 11, 2023
Examiner
FINK, THOMAS ANDREW
Art Unit
3746
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Helion Energy Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
349 granted / 541 resolved
-5.5% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
558
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
§112
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 541 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 28-29, 34, 37, 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Becker US 3098155. Becker discloses: 28. (Original) A vacuum pump comprising: a pump chamber (inside 1); a pump wall 1 surrounding the pump chamber; a vacuum port 4 into the pump chamber to fluidically couple the pump chamber to a vacuum chamber located external to the pump chamber; an exhaust port 27 into the pump chamber to fluidically couple the pump chamber to a backing pump for removal of gas from the pump chamber; a getter region (13, 20) to hold a getter, wherein the getter region is coupled to the pump chamber (see e.g. the figure where all parts shown are coupled together into a pump as shown); a heater (at least one of 25, 20) thermally coupled to the getter region to liquefy the getter in the getter region (see e.g. the figure); and at least one injector 10 fluidically coupled to the getter region and arranged to spray liquefied getter from the getter region into the pump chamber to remove a gaseous substance of the gas from the pump chamber by chemically binding of the gaseous substance with the sprayed liquefied getter (see e.g.: The method according to the invention operating according to the getter principle avoids the known difficulties. According to this method there is employed as gas-absorbing medium a metal which is liquid at low temperatures and is maintained at a low temperature, and which has a very low vapour pressure even at a comparatively high temperature, preferably gallium or gallium alloys, in col 1 line 39-46; and, The pipes 7 are finely perforated over their length, the individual perforations being shown at 10. Liquid metal passes out through these perforations in the form of a rain, as indicated in 'broken lines.” in col 2 lines 15-18); wherein the at least one injector is arranged to spray the liquefied getter in a direction to move the gas within the pump chamber towards the exhaust port for evacuation from the pump chamber (see e.g. the Figure). 29. (Original) The vacuum pump of claim 28, wherein, in operation, the getter spray contains lithium that chemically binds with the gaseous substance to remove the gaseous substance from the pump chamber (The getter is not positively claimed in claim 28 or here in claim 29. Only in claim 30 is applicant actually claiming the getter. Becker discloses the use of liquid metal getters and another liquid metal getter would be obvious as lithium is a known liquid metal getter.). 34. (Currently Amended) The vacuum pump of claim 28, further comprising a valve 29 to seal off the getter region from the pump chamber. 37. (Currently Amended) The vacuum pump of claim 34, wherein the heater 25 is a first heater, and further comprising a second heater 20 configured to heat the liquefied getter prior to injection into the pump chamber by the at least one injector (see e.g. the figure). 42. (Original) The vacuum pump of claim 34, further comprising a fluid port 19 coupled to the getter region to remove the liquefied getter from the getter region. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 30, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker US 3098155 in view of Mastrup US 4324765. Regarding claim 30, Becker does not disclose the limitations of claim 30. However, Mastrup discloses further comprising the getter, wherein the getter comprises at least one of lithium, sodium, a compound, or an alloy (see e.g. lithium Li throughout including col 4 lines 10-12). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill of the art would have found it obvious to utilize lithium as a getter as taught by Mastrup to gain the benefit of utilizing a known getter material and/or to gain the benefit of using a substance which has a high chemical affinity for the gases to be removed and which generates precipitating non-volatile reaction products as a result of reaction with these gases as taught by Mastrup in col 4 lines 11-17. Regarding claim 35, Becker discloses a vacuum port coupler 5 connected to the vacuum port. Becker does not disclose a vacuum port baffle located in or adjacent to the vacuum port coupler, wherein the vacuum port baffle aids in preventing backstreaming of getter spray particles and/or gaseous substances through the vacuum port coupler. Mastrup discloses a vacuum port baffle (64) located in or adjacent to the vacuum port coupler, wherein the vacuum port baffle aids in preventing backstreaming of getter spray particles and/or gaseous substances through the vacuum port coupler (This is a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim, the baffle 64 of Mastrup is capable of performing the intended use and therefore meets the limitations of the apparatus claim. See MPEP 2114 II. See e.g. Fig 3 of Mastrup.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill of the art would have found it obvious to utilize a baffle at the vacuum port as taught by Mastrup in the pump of Becker to gain the benefit of deflecting particles from directly exiting the inlet port. Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker US 3098155 in view of Le Boucher US 5415529. Regarding claim 36, Becker discloses the use of a pump 23 fluidically coupled between the getter region and the at least one injector to pump the liquefied getter to the at least one injector (see e.g. the figure) but does not specify the type of pump and thus does not disclose the use of electromagnetic induction pump. Le Boucher discloses the use of electromagnetic induction pump for pumping liquid metals such as lithium (see e.g. col 7 lines 44-51). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill of the art would have found it obvious to utilize an electromagnetic induction pump as taught by Le Boucher in the system of Becker to gain the benefit of using a known type of pump for pumping liquid metals such as lithium. Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker US 3098155 in view of Batzer US 3050236. Regarding claim 43, Becker as modified above does not disclose the limitation of claim 43. However, like Becker, Batzer discloses a gettering pump using liquid metal getter, the vacuum pump comprising a getter processor 22 fluidically coupled to the getter region 19 to receive the liquefied getter containing an amount of a solid product produced by chemical binding of the liquefied getter that is sprayed into the pump chamber with a gaseous substance in the pump chamber, to separate at least a portion of the solid product from the liquefied getter, and to output (via 26) the liquefied getter containing a smaller amount of the solid product; a getter return tube (in Fig 1, any conduit from 19 to 22, connecting 19 to 22) coupled between the getter region and the getter processor; and a getter feed tube (in Fig 1, any conduit between 22 and 18 connecting 22 to 18, wherein 18 is connected to 19) coupled between the getter processor and the getter region (see e.g. Fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill of the art would have found it obvious to utilize a getter processor as taught by Batzer in the system of Becker to gain the benefit of “Continued absorption is assured by suitable apparatus for continuous renewal of the liquid surface and replacement with clean or desorbed liquid” as taught by Batzer in col 1 lines 37-39. Claim(s) 44-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker US 3098155 in view of Sved US 20080089460. Regarding claim 44, Becker discloses the vacuum pump is connected to a container to remove gas from the container (see e.g. “The casing 1 is the actual pump casing, to which is connected the apparatus or vessel (not shown) to be evacuated. The casing 1 is constricted in conical fashion at 3 and forms a pipe socket 4 carrying a flange 5 for attachment of the apparatus to be evacuated or of the pipe leading to such apparatus”. in col 2 lines 4-9). Thus, it is believed Becker discloses: 44. (Original) A system comprising the vacuum pump of claim 34 in combination with a vacuum chamber (see e.g. “The casing 1 is the actual pump casing, to which is connected the apparatus or vessel (not shown) to be evacuated. The casing 1 is constricted in conical fashion at 3 and forms a pipe socket 4 carrying a flange 5 for attachment of the apparatus to be evacuated or of the pipe leading to such apparatus”. in col 2 lines 4-9) in which to perform a process, wherein the vacuum pump is coupled to the vacuum chamber to remove gas from the vacuum chamber (see e.g. “The casing 1 is the actual pump casing, to which is connected the apparatus or vessel (not shown) to be evacuated. The casing 1 is constricted in conical fashion at 3 and forms a pipe socket 4 carrying a flange 5 for attachment of the apparatus to be evacuated or of the pipe leading to such apparatus”. in col 2 lines 4-9). The processes of claims 45-46 are directed to the intended use of the vacuum chamber and thus are obvious over Becker. See MPEP 2114II. In any event, Sved discloses: Claim 44: A system comprising the vacuum pump 27 in combination with a vacuum chamber 30 in which to perform a process, wherein the vacuum pump is coupled to the vacuum chamber to remove gas from the vacuum chamber (see e.g. Fig 3). Claim 45: wherein the process is fusion of two nuclei (see fusion throughout including 0001). Claim 46: wherein the process produces x-rays, extreme ultraviolet rays, electrons, or ions (see e.g. 0044, 0062, 0075). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill of the art would have found it obvious to connect the vacuum pump Becker to a reaction vessel container as taught by Sved to gain the benefit of producing a vacuum in the reaction vessel container as desired. Claim(s) 28-30, 34-35, 37, 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mastrup US 4324765 in view of Ardenne US 2948459 as evidenced by Jancke US 3134534. Mastrup discloses: 28. (Original) A vacuum pump comprising :a pump chamber (18 in Fig 2 of 54 in Fig 3); a pump wall (29, 31 in Fig 2, or 63, 67 in Fig 3) surrounding the pump chamber; a vacuum port 58 into the pump chamber to fluidically couple the pump chamber to a vacuum chamber located external to the pump chamber; a getter region to hold a getter (comprising 10 in Fig 2 of comprising 40 in Fig 3), wherein the getter region is coupled to the pump chamber (see e.g. Figs 2-3); a heater thermally coupled to the getter region to liquefy the getter in the getter region (22 in Fig 2 and 56 in Fig 3); and at least one injector fluidically coupled to the getter region and arranged to spray liquefied getter from the getter region into the pump chamber (15, 16 in Fig 2 or 52 in Fig 3) to remove a gaseous substance of the gas from the pump chamber by chemically binding of the gaseous substance with the sprayed liquefied getter (see e.g. “Next, as shown in step IV of FIG. 1, the aerosol particles of the reactive substance are brought into contact in a second chamber with the selected gaseous materials to be removed. A vigorous chemical reaction occurs between the gaseous material and the reactive aerosol, resulting in the formation of precipitating, non-volatile reaction products generating a partial vacuum in the second chamber, which provides the pumping and removal of the gaseous material from its original container.” in col 4 lines 33-42). Mastrup does not disclose an exhaust port into the pump chamber to fluidically couple the pump chamber to a backing pump for removal of gas from the pump chamber. Ardenne discloses a getter pump including a vacuum port 21 into the pump chamber (inner chamber of pump in which 13 is located) located in the radially outer portion of the cover 22 and fluidically couple the pump chamber to a vacuum chamber located external to the pump chamber (see e.g. the cover 22 is formed with openings 21 which communicate with the container which is to be evacuated, as in col 1lines 60-62); an exhaust port 3 into the pump chamber to fluidically couple the pump chamber to a backing pump for removal of gas from the pump chamber (see e.g. “A tubular duct 3 connects the pump chamber with a roughing pump capable of producing a vacuum of approximately 10-2 mm. A rotating mechanical pump such as a Roots pump is suitable.” in col 1 lines 62-67). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill of the art would have found it obvious to utilize both an inlet port in the radially outer portion of the cover 61 of Mastrup and an outlet port in the sidewall 63 of the pump chamber 54 of Mastrup as taught by Ardenne to gain the benefit of enabling the use of a backing/roughing pump to evacuate the vacuum chamber before utilizing the getter pump wherein Jancke provides evidence that is it known to use a vacuum port 15 at the top of a pump chamber and an outlet port 14 on the side wall of the pump chamber below a nozzle 24 in a vacuum pump. With this modification, Mastrup as modified above would disclose wherein the at least one injector is arranged to spray the liquefied getter in a direction to move the gas within the pump chamber towards the exhaust port for evacuation from the pump chamber (see Ardenne where the inlet port is located in the top cover and the outlet port is located in the side wall of the pump chamber wherein Jancke provides evidence that is it known to use a vacuum port 15 at the top of a pump chamber and an outlet port 14 on the side wall of the pump chamber below a nozzle 24 in a vacuum pump). Mastrup as modified above discloses (references made to Mastrup unless noted otherwise): 29. (Original) The vacuum pump of claim 28, wherein, in operation, the getter spray contains lithium that chemically binds with the gaseous substance to remove the gaseous substance from the pump chamber (see e.g. the abstract, col 5 lines 22-38, and col 6 lined 44-45; and see e.g. lithium Li throughout including col 4 lines 10-12). 30. (Currently Amended) The vacuum pump of claim 28, further comprising the getter, wherein the getter comprises at least one of lithium, sodium, a compound, or an alloy (see e.g. lithium Li throughout including col 4 lines 10-12). 34. (Currently Amended) The vacuum pump of claim 28, further comprising a valve to seal off the getter region from the pump chamber (see e.g. “The aerosol-producing means 16 may contain a valve which controls the flow rate of the reactants into the second chamber 18” in col 4 lined 61-63). 35. (Original) The vacuum pump of claim 34, further comprising: a vacuum port coupler (see e.g. 17 in Fig 2 or 60 in Fig 3 of Mastrup) connected to the pump wall (all ports of Mastrup and Ardenne are connected to the pump wall as all parts of the pump are connected together as a whole); and a vacuum port baffle (64 of Mastrup) located in or adjacent to the vacuum port coupler, wherein the vacuum port baffle aids in preventing backstreaming of getter spray particles and/or gaseous substances through the vacuum port coupler (This is a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim, the baffle 64 of Mastrup is capable of performing the intended use and therefore meets the limitations of the apparatus claim. See MPEP 2114 II. See e.g. Fig 3 of Mastrup.). 37. (Currently Amended) The vacuum pump of claim 34, wherein the heater is a first heater (heating elements [plural] 22 in Fig 2, or heating elements [plural] 56 in Fig 3), and further comprising a second heater (see e.g. 69 in Fig 3; or heating elements [plural] 22 in Fig 2, or heating elements [plural] 56 in Fig 3) configured to heat the liquefied getter prior to injection into the pump chamber by the at least one injector (see e.g. Figs 2-3). 42. (Original) The vacuum pump of claim 34, further comprising a fluid port (drain tube 66 in Fig 3) coupled to the getter region to remove the liquefied getter from the getter region. Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mastrup US 4324765 in view of Ardenne US 2948459 as evidenced by Jancke US 3134534 in further view of Batzer US 3050236 in further view of Le Boucher US 5415529. Mastrup as modified above discloses the use of pressurized gas as a pumping mechanism and thus does not disclose the limitation of claim 36. Batzer discloses a pump (21, 26, or 28) fluidically coupled between the getter region 19 and the at least one injector 16 to pump the liquefied getter to the at least one injector. Batzer does not specify the type of pump used. Le Boucher discloses the use of electromagnetic induction pump for pumping lithium (see e.g. col 7 lines 44-51). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill of the art would have found it obvious to utilize an electromagnetic induction pump as taught by Le Boucher to pump lithium from the getter region to the nozzle as taught by Batzer in the system of Mastrup as modified above to gain the benefit of eliminating the need for an inert gas source for pumping. Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mastrup US 4324765 in view of Ardenne US 2948459 as evidenced by Jancke US 3134534 in further view of Batzer US 3050236. Regarding claim 43, Mastrup as modified above does not disclose the limitation of claim 43. However, like Mastrup, Batzer discloses a gettering pump using liquid metal getter, the vacuum pump comprising a getter processor 22 fluidically coupled to the getter region 19 to receive the liquefied getter containing an amount of a solid product produced by chemical binding of the liquefied getter that is sprayed into the pump chamber with a gaseous substance in the pump chamber, to separate at least a portion of the solid product from the liquefied getter, and to output (via 26) the liquefied getter containing a smaller amount of the solid product; a getter return tube (in Fig 1, any conduit from 19 to 22, connecting 19 to 22) coupled between the getter region and the getter processor; and a getter feed tube (in Fig 1, any conduit between 22 and 18 connecting 22 to 18, wherein 18 is connected to 19) coupled between the getter processor and the getter region (see e.g. Fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill of the art would have found it obvious to utilize a getter processor as taught by Batzer in the system of Mastrup as modified above to gain the benefit of “Continued absorption is assured by suitable apparatus for continuous renewal of the liquid surface and replacement with clean or desorbed liquid” as taught by Batzer in col 1 lines 37-39. Claim(s) 44-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mastrup US 4324765 in view of Ardenne US 2948459 as evidenced by Jancke US 3134534 in further view of Sved US 20080089460. Regarding claim 44, Mastrup as modified above discloses the vacuum pump is connected to a container to remove gas from the container (see container throughout including claims 1, 3, and 5 of Mastrup). Thus, it is believed Mastrup discloses: 44. (Original) A system comprising the vacuum pump of claim 34 in combination with a vacuum chamber (see container throughout including claims 1, 3, and 5) in which to perform a process, wherein the vacuum pump is coupled to the vacuum chamber to remove gas from the vacuum chamber (see e.g. claims 1, 3, and 5). The processes of claims 45-46 are directed to the intended use of the vacuum chamber and thus are obvious over Mastrup. See MPEP 2114II. In any event, Sved discloses: Claim 44: A system comprising the vacuum pump 27 in combination with a vacuum chamber 30 in which to perform a process, wherein the vacuum pump is coupled to the vacuum chamber to remove gas from the vacuum chamber (see e.g. Fig 3). Claim 45: wherein the process is fusion of two nuclei (see fusion throughout including 0001). Claim 46: wherein the process produces x-rays, extreme ultraviolet rays, electrons, or ions (see e.g. 0044, 0062, 0075). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill of the art would have found it obvious to connect the vacuum pump Mastrup as modified above to a reaction vessel container as taught by Sved to gain the benefit of producing a vacuum in the reaction vessel container as desired. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 38-41 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New references, Becker, Ardenne, and Jancke are being used to disclose the limitations which applicant argues. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571)270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 11, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 15, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 17, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 22, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 08, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 14, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601363
VENTILATION AND HEAT DISSIPATION APPARATUS OF WIND-ASSISTED ROTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595794
FLUID CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595804
Housing Joints with Compression Loaded Graphite Seals for Downhole ESP Use
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595793
COMPRESSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590740
TURBO COMPRESSOR AND REFRIGERATION CYCLE DEVICE HAVING TURBO COMPRESSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+32.5%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 541 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