Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/804,355

MOUNTING DEVICE, MOUNTING METHOD, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PRODUCT

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 14, 2024
Examiner
RAMOS, NICOLE N
Art Unit
3722
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Sintokogio Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
624 granted / 766 resolved
+11.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
811
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
35.5%
-4.5% vs TC avg
§102
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§112
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 766 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/10/2025. 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 2-4 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 2 recites in lines 5-7 that “a chuck portion…attached to a first main surface which a main surface on a side to which the contact members art attached, among two main surfaces of the base portion”. However, it is unclear to which it is referring to by “among two main surfaces” of the base portion? Is it that the chuck portion is attached among two main surfaces of the base portion? Or a first main surface which is a main surface on a side to which contact members are attached, among two main surfaces of the base portion? Or of which contact members are attached, among two main surfaces of the base portion? Further clarification is needed. Claim 2 recites in lines 9-11 that “the force sensor is attached on a side closer to a second main surface which is a main surface located opposite to the first main surface, among the two main surfaces of the base portion”. However, it is unclear to which it is referring to by “among two main surfaces” of the base portion? Is it that the force sensor is attached among two main surfaces of the base portion? Or a side closer to a second main surface which is a main surface located opposite to the first main surface? Or of the first main surface, among two main surfaces of the base portion? Further clarification is needed. Claim 3 recites in lines 2-5 that an alerting section is “configured to output a predetermined signal in a case where at least one of the force in the pressing direction and the torque about the axis orthogonal to the pressing direction, the force and torque having been detected by the force sensor, has a value exceeding a predetermined numerical range”. However, the conditional phrase “a case where at least one of” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the limitations right after the conditional phrase are actually part of the scope of the claim or not. What will happen where there is no case where at least one of the force…and torque…has a value exceeding a predetermined numerical range? Further clarification is needed. Claim 4 recites in line 2 “a disc-shaped casting having a draft angle”. However, it is unclear what exactly this “draft angle” is. In relation to what is this angle determined? Further clarification is needed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 1-4 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10 2018 122 027 (hereafter—DE’027--). In regards to claim 1, DE’027 discloses (in Figure 1) a mounting device configured to mount a turning target (19) to a turning processing device (5), the mounting device comprising a pressing jig (2, 6, and 7) configured to press the turning target (19) against the turning processing device (1), wherein to the pressing jig (2, 6, and 7), contact members (6) contactable with the turning target (19) and a force sensor (10) configured to, via the contact members (6), to be capable of detecting a force in a pressing direction and a torque about an axis orthogonal to the pressing direction, the force and the torque acting from the turning processing device on the turning target, are attached. In regards to claim 2, DE’027 discloses the mounting device according to claim 1, DE’027 also discloses that the pressing jig (2, 6, and 7) includes: a flat plate-shaped base portion (2) extending in a direction orthogonal to the pressing direction; and a chuck portion (refer to the portion within 6) configured to hold the turning target (19), the chuck portion being attached to a first main surface (4) which is a main surface on a side to which the contact members (6) are attached, among two main surfaces of the base portion, the force sensor (10) is attached on a side closer to a second main surface which is a main surface located opposite to the first main surface, among the two main surfaces of the base portion, and the contact members are bar-shaped structures (see Figure 1) extending along the pressing direction and are provided at regular intervals along an imaginary circle including the chuck portion as a center of the imaginary circle (see Figure 1). In regards to claim 3, DE’027 discloses the mounting device according to claim 1, DE’027 also discloses an alerting section (display unit 22) capable of being configured to output a predetermined signal in a case where at least one of the force in the pressing direction and the torque about the axis orthogonal to the pressing direction, the force and the torque having been detected by the force sensor, has a value exceeding a predetermined numerical range. In regards to claim 4, DE’027 discloses the mounting device according to claim 1, DE’027 also discloses that the turning target (19) is a disc-shaped casting having a draft angle. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. DE’027 device is capable of holding a disc-shaped casting having a draft angle turning target. 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(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Stangl et al. US 2024/0139830 (hereafter—Stangl--). In regards to claim 1, Stangl discloses (in Figure 1) a mounting device configured to mount a turning target (31) to a turning processing device (1), the mounting device comprising a pressing jig (4) configured to press the turning target (31) against the turning processing device (1), wherein to the pressing jig (4), contact members (10) contactable with the turning target (31) and a force sensor (16) configured to, via the contact members (10), to be capable of detecting a force in a pressing direction and a torque about an axis orthogonal to the pressing direction, the force and the torque acting from the turning processing device on the turning target, are attached. If the applicant considers that the interpretation of the claim(s) under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, i.e., is or may be in dispute under given the current interpretation, the current under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is appropriate. See MPEP §§ 2111- 2116.01. If the applicant considers that the current interpretation of Stangl fails to explicitly teach that “force sensor is configured to, via the contact members, detect a force in a pressing direction and a torque about an axis orthogonal to the pressing direction”; the Examiner takes Official Notice on the fact that strain gauge sensors as the ones set forth by Stangl are well used in the art to detect both pressing and torque forces1 and thus provide accurate reading of forces generated within a machining environment. Therefore, the examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the Applicant' s invention was filed, to have the force sensor of Stangl be capable of detecting both a pressing and torque force, to provide accurate reading of forces generated within a machining environment. In regards to claim 2, Stangl discloses the mounting device according to claim 1, Stangl also discloses that the pressing jig includes: a flat plate-shaped base portion (2) extending in a direction orthogonal to the pressing direction; and a chuck portion (refer to the portion within 4) configured to hold the turning target (31), the chuck portion being attached to a first main surface which is a main surface on a side to which the contact members (10) are attached, among two main surfaces of the base portion, the force sensor is attached on a side closer to a second main surface which is a main surface located opposite to the first main surface, among the two main surfaces of the base portion, and the contact members are bar-shaped structures (see Figures 3 and 4) extending along the pressing direction and are provided at regular intervals along an imaginary circle including the chuck portion as a center of the imaginary circle (see Figure 1). In regards to claim 3, Stangl discloses the mounting device according to claim 1, Stangl also discloses an alerting section (see Figure 1, refer to 5 as set forth in lines 15-17 on paragraph [0037]) capable of being configured to output a predetermined signal in a case where at least one of the force in the pressing direction and the torque about the axis orthogonal to the pressing direction, the force and the torque having been detected by the force sensor, has a value exceeding a predetermined numerical range. In regards to claim 4, Stangl discloses the mounting device according to claim 1, Stangl also discloses that the turning target (31) is a disc-shaped casting having a draft angle. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Stangl device is capable of holding a disc-shaped casting having a draft angle turning target. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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. /NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 1 See teachings of DE’027 on section 10 above.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 14, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599975
ROTARY CUTTING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599977
END MILL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594635
ROUTER SLED
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594612
SOFFIT SAW AND EXTENSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589439
TOOL HOLDER AND TOOL HOLDING STRUCTURE INCLUDING THE SAME
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+10.2%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 766 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