Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/740,041

RECTANGULAR RUPTURE DISK

Final Rejection §112§DP
Filed
Jun 11, 2024
Examiner
CASTRIOTTA, JENNIFER
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
rembe GmbH safety + control
OA Round
2 (Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
424 granted / 687 resolved
-8.3% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
728
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
40.0%
+0.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 687 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §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 . 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 7, 14, and 17 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. Claim 7 has been amended to state “the first shoulder area and the second shoulder area extend out of a plane of the second part to opposite sides of the plane of the second part.” Claims 14 and 17 include the same language. Looking at the first part of the claim where it says “the first shoulder area and the second shoulder area extend out of a plane of the second part” – the only figure which appears to show the first and second shoulders extending out of a plane of the second part is Fig. 4b (shown below). Fig. 4 and 4a both show the second shoulder (16) being located entirely above the second part. As can be seen in Fig, 4b it appears as though the first shoulder area and the second shoulder area extend out of a plane of the second part to a same side of the plane of the second part. As such, claims 7, 14, and 17 do not appear to include limitations which comply with the written description requirement. Further correction and clarification are required. [AltContent: connector] PNG media_image1.png 337 1015 media_image1.png Greyscale The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 3, 5-7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 3 and 8 both depend from claim 1 which was recently amended to include a first shoulder area is located in the second part of the sheet metal. Claims 3 and 8 both currently state a first shoulder area is located in the second part of the sheet metal, thus making them redundant and not further limiting the subject matter of claim 1 which they depend from. Claims 5-7, and 10 depend from claims 3 and 8 and are rejected by extension. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Interpretation Regarding the rejections of claims 3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d): Claim 5 depends from claim 3, which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). If Applicant were to cancel claim 3, that would leave claim 5 without a valid parent claim. For the purposes of further consideration, the Examiner is interpreting claim 5 as depending from claim 1. The Examiner further notes that if claim 5 were to be amended to depend from claim 1, claim 11 would be present an issue of Double Patenting. The Examiner suggests the Applicant cancel claim 11. Similar to claim 5 above, claim 10 depends from claim 8, which is which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). If claim 8 were to be cancelled that would claim 10 without a valid parent claim. However, if claim 10 were to be amended to depend from claim 1, that would present an issue of Double Patenting as claim 10 would then be the same as claim 5. The Examiner suggests the Applicant cancel claim 10. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 4 and 9, which were previously indicated as allowable were amended in to independent form, and claim 1 was amended to also include the allowable subject matter from claim 9. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, the amendments to claim 7 have warranted a new ground(s) of rejection, as can be seen above. 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 JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm. 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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. /JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733 /DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 11, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Dec 23, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Apr 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601451
CRYOGENIC LIQUID STORAGE TANK INCLUDING SUPPORTER STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595096
ONE-HANDED PRESS-OPEN COSMETIC CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583651
Dual Functioning Straw and Drink Spout
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12564281
Stackable Space Saving System and Method of Use
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12522414
FULLY RECYCLABLE CONTAINER AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 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
62%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+28.8%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 687 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month