Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/700,733

WORK MACHINE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 12, 2024
Examiner
ADAMS, NATHANIEL L
Art Unit
3654
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Tadano Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
369 granted / 514 resolved
+19.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
560
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
§102
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
§112
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 514 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 . 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 1-7 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. Claim 1 lines 5 and 7 recite “the boom,” which has unclear antecedent basis. A “plurality of booms” is set forth before these recitations. To which of the plurality of booms does “the boom” have reference? 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 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. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2019142621 A (hereinafter “Zushi”; i.e. embodiment 2 which is the same as the first embodiment, except the sensor 44 is changed per figures 19-20). Regarding claim 1 Zushi discloses a work machine comprising: a plurality of booms (141/142/143) that are extended and retracted by motive power from an actuator (3); a first pin (454a) that is moved by a first spring (455a) to connect [a] boom (e.g. 141) and the actuator (3) to each other and is moved by motive power from a motor (41) to release a connection of the boom (e.g. 141) and the actuator (3); a second pin (144a) that is moved by a second spring (463) to connect adjacent booms of the booms (141/142/143) and is moved by motive power from the motor (41) to release a connection of the adjacent booms; and a first detection device (502A) and a second detection device (501A) that detect positions of the first pin (454a) and the second pin (144a) on the basis of a rotation of a rotary member (432) that is rotated by motive power from the motor (41). Regarding claim 2 Zushi discloses the above work machine, and further discloses wherein the first detection device (502A) and the second detection device (501A) detect the positions of the first pin (454a) and the second pin (144a) by different detection methods (i.e. by physically separate mechanisms, 52a2 and 50c2). Regarding claim 3 Zushi discloses the above work machine, and further discloses a support (i.e. unshown supporting member for 502A/501A, necessarily present or the detectors would fall; see fig. 19A) that supports the first detection device (502A) and the second detection device (501A), wherein the first detection device (502A) includes a first detection unit (53A) fixed around (near) the rotary member (432) via the support (unshown supporting member for 502A/501A), and the second detection device (501A) includes a second detection unit (51A) fixed around the rotary member (432) via the support (supporting member for 502A/501A). 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. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zushi. Regarding claim 4 Zushi teaches the above machine, but fails to teach the support as outlined in claim 4. The unshown (but necessarily present) support of Zushi deviates from the support of claim 4 in that it is not known if there are two plate portions, or which direction these plate portions face. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the housing of any convenient shape, including that claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to properly secure the detection devices. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-7 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such references show various forms of apparatus which comprise at least one similar feature to the present application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time. 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, Victoria P Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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. /NATHANIEL L ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 12, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569899
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR GUIDING METAL STRIPS, COMPRISING GRINDING BODIES WITH SUPPORT ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570099
SUBSTRATE ALIGNMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565405
Modular and Collapsible Server Lift Assist for Immersion Cooling System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12552646
WILDERNESS LIFTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12545557
WIND TURBINE LIFTING ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
72%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+20.3%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 514 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