Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 19/087,384

CUTTING INSERT, BODY, AND CUTTING TOOL

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Mar 21, 2025
Priority
Jun 04, 2024 — JP 2024-090433
Examiner
COZART, JERMIE E
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
TUNGALOY Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 0m
Est. Remaining
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
779 granted / 927 resolved
+24.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
943
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
32.4%
-7.6% vs TC avg
§102
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
§112
32.4%
-7.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 927 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 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 1-11 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. The term “substantially” in claims 1, 5, and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantially” is used to parallelogram shape of the first surface, however, it is unclear as to what is meant by “substantially parallelogram” in terms of the degree to which the first surface has a parallelogram shape. The term “substantially” in claims 1, 5, and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantially” is used to trapezoidal shape of the second surface, however, it is unclear as to what is meant by “substantially trapezoidal” in terms of the degree to which the second surface has a trapezoidal shape. 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) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagaya et al. (US 2005/0147475 A1). Regarding claim 5, Nagaya discloses a body (21; Fig. 6) comprising a first mounting seat (24a) and second mounting seat (31a). Note that “to which a cutting insert is mounted, the cutting insert having: a first surface having a substantially parallelogram shape and provided as one of a pair of end surfaces that face each other; second surfaces provided as a pair of side surfaces that face each other, each second surface having a substantially trapezoidal shape and serving as a surface including a rake surface; a first cutting edge formed along a side of each of the second surfaces, the side being an adjoining side that adjoins the first surface from among sides that define the second surface; and a second cutting edge formed along a side of each of the second surfaces, other than the adjoining side,” “to which the cutting insert is mounted in a first position in which the first cutting edge can be used as a cutting edge during cutting,” and ‘to which the cutting insert is mounted in a second position in which the second cutting edge can be used as a cutting edge during cutting” are recitations of the intended use, and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Regarding claim 6, Nagaya discloses the first mounting seat (24a) and second mounting seat (31a) arranged in an axial direction (see Fig. 6). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-4 and 7-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed on the attached PTO-892 are cited to show cutting inserts in cutting tools. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMIE E COZART whose telephone number is (571)272-4528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 7:00pm. 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, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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. /JERMIE E COZART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 September 17, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 21, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12735248
METHOD FOR CONSTRUCTING TRIPLE-SHELL TANK
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12734588
PRECISELY-POSITIONED DRILLING APPARATUS FOR STEEL TUBULAR JOINTS AND APPLICATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 3m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12734589
POCKET HOLE DRILLING DEVICE
1y 11m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12728460
MACHINING APPARATUS FOR OPTICAL LENSES, AND MANUFACTURING SYSTEM HAVING THE SAME
3y 3m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12728463
DRILL JIGS FOR POSITIONING MOUNTING HOLES USING METROLOGY PROCESSES, AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS
3y 1m 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
87%
With Interview (+3.2%)
2y 7m (~1y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 927 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