Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 07, 2026
Application No. 18/986,633

METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PROVIDING CASED PORTIONS OF PASTY FOOD MASS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Dec 18, 2024
Priority
Dec 18, 2023 — DE 102023135657.7
Examiner
PARSLEY, DAVID J
Art Unit
3643
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 6m
Est. Remaining
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allowance Rate
734 granted / 1362 resolved
+1.9% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
1427
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
50.9%
+10.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1362 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
Detailed Action Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5-20-26 has been entered. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Double Patenting 2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 ,5-8 and 13 of copending Application No. 18/986,628 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3, 5-8 and 13 of the ‘628 application are substantially similar to claims 1-3, 5-8 and 13 of the present application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 9-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-12 of copending Application No. 18/986,628 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 9-12 of the ‘628 application are substantially similar to claims 9-12 of the present application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Response to Arguments 3. Regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejections, it is noted that applicant will address these rejections at a later time if necessary. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 5-20-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-13 detailed in the last office action dated 1-23-26. Conclusion 4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST. 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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. /DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 1 earlier event
Sep 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP
Dec 23, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DP
Apr 20, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 24, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
May 20, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
May 22, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12690569
Q-Leash Systems
8y 7m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12685300
Fishing Lure
4y 9m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12677760
GREENHOUSE AND FORCED GREENHOUSE CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD
8y 1m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12682405
DEVICE FOR AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT
6y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12677800
CATTLE WATER FOUNTAIN
3y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+28.4%)
3y 1m (~1y 6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1362 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