Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/775,365

TIE PLATE SEPARATOR AND METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 17, 2024
Priority
Jun 27, 2019 — provisional 62/867,612 +2 more
Examiner
KEENAN, JAMES W
Art Unit
3655
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
B & B Metals Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allowance Rate
772 granted / 1155 resolved
+14.8% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1183
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
43.2%
+3.2% vs TC avg
§102
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
§112
35.4%
-4.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1155 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 19-22) and Species IB (electric release circuit) in the reply filed on 9/09/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-18 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, respectively, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 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 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burke et al (US 8,070,409, cited by applicant). Burke shows a device which could be used, without modification, as a tie plate separator, comprising: a bar 160 having a plurality of magnets 180, 182 spaced along a longitudinal direction of the bar; the plurality of magnets having at least one cooperating circuit (not separately identified but “leads 170, 172 which control when the electromagnets are on and/or off” are considered to inherently be part of an electric circuit; col. 5:54-58) which allows for selective release of metal objects W, which could be tie plates, from the plurality of magnets; a support structure 162 extending from said bar and capable of being grasped for movement of the bar (e.g., by robotic mechanism 50). Re claim 21, in the same manner, Burke shows a tie plate separator, comprising: a bar 160 having a plurality of spaced connectors 164, 166 depending from said bar; a plurality of magnets 180, 182, each of said plurality of magnets corresponding to one of said plurality of spaced connectors (Figs. 3, 3A); a support structure 162 extending from said bar and capable of being grasped; an electrical conduit 170, 172 extending to each of said plurality of magnets for selective powering on or off of said plurality of magnets. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke et al in view of Shaw (US 505,067, cited by applicant). Burke does not show that the spaced connectors are chains, although they are “flexible members”. Shaw shows that flexible members D used in a hoisting device for picking up objects can be chains, ropes, flexible bands, or other equivalent types of cables (page 1:45-49). It is also noted that applicant's own disclosure indicates that the connectors 36 may be "cables, chains, ropes, and the like" (par. [0055]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the process of Burke by utilizing chains as the flexible members, as taught by Shaw, as the reference explicitly states that a chain is merely one of a finite number of known alternate equivalent types of flexible members from which to choose, and as such would provide an effective means of connecting the magnets to the bar, especially since applicant's own disclosure indicates that the type of flexible member used is not critical. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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. /James Keenan/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3652 9/21/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 17, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 29, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12747100
A STORAGE COLUMN MODULE FOR COUPLING TO A FRAMEWORK STRUCTURE OF AN AUTOMATED STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12741808
REFUSE VEHICLE WITH AN AUTOMATICALLY EJECTING PACK PANEL
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12722524
BATTERY SWAP APPARATUS AND BATTERY SWAP SYSTEM
2y 10m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12722310
METHOD AND/OR SYSTEM FOR PROCESSING A SUBSTRATE AND ROBOT APPARATUS THEREFOR
1y 11m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12715692
A DUAL CARRIAGE ACCESS STATION FOR AN AUTOMATED STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM AND A METHOD FOR USING SAME
3y 2m to grant Granted Aug 25, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+24.1%)
2y 10m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1155 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