Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/610,492

Mold body with integrated connection unit for a pre-pressing tool, and pre-pressing tool

Final Rejection §DOUBLEPATENT§DP
Filed
Mar 20, 2024
Priority
Oct 14, 2019 — DE 10 2019 127 562.8 +5 more
Examiner
FORTUNA, JOSE A
Art Unit
1748
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kiefel GmbH
OA Round
2 (Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allowance Rate
1038 granted / 1307 resolved
+14.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1353
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
75.8%
+35.8% vs TC avg
§102
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§112
9.6%
-30.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1307 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT §DP
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: figure 1 does not show: Fiber-forming system 100; Molding 210, environmental-friendly-degradable fiber material 11; collecting ring 24; and pre-pressing lower tool 31, as mentioned on paragraph [0080]. Figure 6 does not show fiber material 11; molding 210; pre-forming 220; formed part 10, as mentioned on paragraph [0085]. Figure 7 does not show; suction tool 2; formed part 111; screen 22 and heating element 36, as mentioned on paragraph [0086]. If the examiner missed some, applicant(s) should correct the missed ones. Note when an element is not part of the described figure, but need to mentioned, then it should inform the reader where said element is shown, e.g., “shown on figure ?” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “11” (¶-[0080]) has been used to designate both environmental-friendly-degradable fiber material and the formed part (¶-[0086]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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, and 3-21 are rejected under Non-Statutory Double Patenting, over co-pending applications 18/610,462 and 18/610,480. This rejection is set forth in the prior Office action mailed on December 18, 2025. Note that the rejection also reads on the newly added claims, claims 20 and 21, for the same reasons explained in the previous office action. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6 of the Remarks, filed February 25, 2026, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) of Decemberover the cited prior art, has been withdrawn. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 3-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under Double Patenting, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: applicants arguments filed on February 25, 2026 are convincing, the cited prior art does not teach nor fairly suggest a mold including a deformable material coupled to a support structure, the floor section and wall sections, and including a removable connection section, that couples the mold body to the support structure of the pre-pressing tool, as it is now claimed. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSE A FORTUNA whose telephone number is (571)272-1188. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY- FRIDAY 11:30 PM- 9:00 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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. /JOSE A FORTUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748 JAF 1 Should be formed part 10, since 11 has been used to designate the environmental-friendly-degradable fiber material.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 20, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT, §DP
Feb 18, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 19, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 25, 2026
Response Filed
May 12, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12630980
WET CELLULOSE FIBER SHEET AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING CELLULOSE FIBER MOLDED BODY
2y 12m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12630977
SHEET MANUFACTURING APPARATUS
1y 8m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12612739
Method for Producing a Moulded Pulp Material for Packaging Unit and Such Packaging Unit
3y 10m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12612735
AQUEOUS DISPERSION FOR IMPROVING BARRIER PROPERTIES
2y 11m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12606961
Sanitary Tissue Product Towels Comprising Non-wood Fibers
3y 0m to grant Granted Apr 21, 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
79%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+9.6%)
2y 3m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1307 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