Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/073,968

AIR MOTOR ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §101§112§DP
Filed
Mar 07, 2025
Examiner
GAY, JENNIFER HAWKINS
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Bluegrass Drilling Technologies LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1012 granted / 1188 resolved
+33.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1221
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
36.9%
-3.1% vs TC avg
§102
28.3%
-11.7% vs TC avg
§112
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1188 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112 §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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: The shading in Figures 2A, 2B, and 4A-7 reduces the legibility of the figures and makes it difficult to discern what is being depicted. Per 37 CFR 1.84(m), shading is encouraged but only if it does not reduce legibility. Figure 3 is a copy of a photograph. Per 37 CFR 1.84(b), photographs are only permitted if it is the only practical way to illustrate the claimed invention. As the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the photograph of Figure 3 is required to be replaced by a drawing. Figures 5 and 6 are cross-sectional views and either do not include cross-hatching or only partially include cross-hatching. Per 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3), sectional views are required to include cross-hatching to properly and clearly depict the invention. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “a top cone”. This feature is being treated as the “filter cone” described in the specification and shown in the drawings. 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 1-20 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. Regarding claims 1 and 17: Claims 1 and 20 require “a top cone”. The use of the term “top” implies that the cone is on top of something or there is a corresponding bottom cone. It is unclear what the term “top” is referring to. Regarding claims 2-16 and 18-20: These claims are considered indefinite due to their dependence on one of the above claims. Double Patenting A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,421,847. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER H GAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7029. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 6-3:30 and every other Friday 6-11. 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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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. /JENNIFER H GAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 JHG 9/30/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595682
A BORING AND ROUTING TEMPLATE JIG FOR DOOR HARDWARE INSTALLATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584374
Methods for Determining Positions of Fluid Interfaces and Detecting Cement Setting in a Subterranean Wellbore
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571274
SETTING TOOL ADAPTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571300
TOOL POSITIONING TECHNIQUE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12553309
ADJUSTABLE WHIPSTOCK ISOLATION MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
85%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+8.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1188 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