Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 17, 2026
Application No. 19/033,770

Opto-mechanical Analysis Device For Determining Particulate Matter In A Measurement Gas

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 22, 2025
Priority
Jan 23, 2024 — EU 24153448.6
Examiner
SMITH, MAURICE C
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Endress+Hauser Sick Gmbh+Co Kg
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
617 granted / 730 resolved
+24.5% vs TC avg
Minimal -4% lift
Without
With
+-4.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
755
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
§103
48.7%
+8.7% vs TC avg
§102
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
§112
32.1%
-7.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 730 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Claim Objections Claim 1, 4, & 13 objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p). 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. 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: “displacement unit is configured to displace” “displacement unit is configured to rotate” comprises “detection unit that is configured to detect” “an overpressure unit is provided and is configured to generate” in claims 1, 2, 3, 5, & 10. 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. Applicant recites the displacement unit comprises a multi-joint connection, drive motor, and a drive shaft (claim 4). Applicant recites detection unit comprises a light barrier (claim 6). 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 § 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. Claim 10 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claimed subject matter “overpressure unit” is rendered indefinite. Examiner notes the specification does not provide the structure for the “overpressure unit” to perform the claimed functions. Applicant teaches the overpressure unit is provided and is configured to generate an increased air pressure. Based upon the specification there is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Clarification is required. Pertinent Art Pol US 20170059478, KR 20150018713, GB 2447925, & JP 2014126529. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-14 & 16-22 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “wherein the displacement unit is configured to displace the optical reference measurement element from a parking position into a reference measurement position, wherein the first light can be radiated into the optical reference measurement element in the reference measurement position, and wherein the plurality of detectors are configured to receive scattered light from the optical reference measurement element in the reference measurement position and to generate reference measurement data and to transmit said data to the control device”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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. /MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 22, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12730004
DIFFRACTION GRATING MONOCHROMATOR
3y 1m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12730073
OPTICAL CONFIGURATIONS FOR HIGH RESOLUTION MICROSCOPY
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12730077
IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12729956
COLLIMATING ARRAY FOR AN OPTICAL SENSING DEVICE
1y 10m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12729984
DISPLACEMENT DETECTING APPARATUS
1y 6m to grant Granted Sep 08, 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
84%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (-4.0%)
2y 2m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 730 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