Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 19/056,585

SYSTEM FOR DETECTING THICKNESS OF A COATING AUTONOMOUSLY APPLIED TO A STRUCTURE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Feb 18, 2025
Examiner
MELLOTT, JAMES M
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Foreman Technologies Inc., Dba Paintjet
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
49%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 49% of resolved cases
49%
Career Allow Rate
268 granted / 543 resolved
-15.6% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
595
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
§112
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 543 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Double Patenting 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 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,257,590. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are permutations and combinations of the allowed claims in the parent patent wherein the differences in the claimed order of steps are prima facie obvious because any order of method steps is obvious absent a showing of unexpected results. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST. 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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 M Mellott/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 18, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 11, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Apr 08, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601621
METHODS OF MANUFACTURING PLASMA GENERATING CELLS FOR A PLASMA SOURCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584219
METHODS FOR CONTROLLING PULSE SHAPE IN ALD PROCESSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581896
EXTERNAL SUBSTRATE SYSTEM ROTATION IN A SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576425
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559046
METHOD FOR PRODUCING A DECORATIVE PART AND DECORATIVE PART PRODUCIBLE BY THIS METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
49%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+28.0%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 543 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month