Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/900,013

DICING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Sep 27, 2024
Examiner
FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR
Art Unit
3724
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Tokyo Seimitsu Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
1262 granted / 1712 resolved
+3.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
1731
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
§102
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
§112
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1712 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a fixture configured to removably fix the slider in claim 3. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being disclosed by Gurley et al. (2010/0077897). (prior art) discloses the invention including: Claim 1; a housing 1 configured to accommodate inside thereof, a worktable 2 configured to hold and move a workpiece, and a spindle (see Fig. 2) configured to be rotatable while holding a blade 14, wherein the housing comprises: an end face 35 provided in a moving direction of the worktable, the end face being on a side where a maintenance work of the dicing device is performed (see Fig. 1 where there is easy access for the maintenance of the tool); and a slider (4 and 5) constituting a part of the end face, and the slider is configured to be freely slidable in a direction to shorten a distance (see Fig. 4A and 5A) from the end face to the spindle. Claim 2; wherein the slider is located at a protruding position (see the dotted lines of 5 in Fig. 5A; and see the solid lines of 4 in Fig. 4A) during dicing processing and is located at a retracted position (see the solid lines of 5 in Fig. 5A; and see the dotted lines of 4 in Fig. 4A) that is a position closer to the blade than the protruding position during the maintenance work. Claim 3; a fixture 25 and 32-33 configured to removably fix the slider at the protruding position. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR FLORES SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday8:00-4:00 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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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. /OMAR FLORES SANCHEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 27, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599980
INNER BURR REMOVAL TOOL HOLDER STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594685
Device and method for machining the edges of casting strands
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594683
HAIR-CUTTING HEAD AND HAIR-CUTTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588588
LOCK OFF ASSEMBLIES FOR TRIMMERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589448
METHOD FOR CUTTING A PANEL MADE OF LAMINATED GLASS
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
74%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+14.3%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1712 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