Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/099,302

Method For Assembling An Anti-Adhesive Film Onto A Metal Substrate By Hot Stamping

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 28, 2025
Examiner
WILENSKY, MOSHE K
Art Unit
3726
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Seb S A
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
540 granted / 718 resolved
+5.2% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
758
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
70.4%
+30.4% vs TC avg
§102
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
§112
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 718 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION1 CLAIM OBJECTIONS Claims 21-47 are objected to because of informalities. Claim 1 has two grammatical issues. First, the first letter of each step should not be capitalized. Second, the word ‘and’ is grammatically required after the semi-colon that concludes step v. Claim 32 recites the lower tool is heated to a temperature comprised between…. The word comprised is unnecessary and potentially confusing and should be deleted, as should the later use of comprised in the claim as well. The remaining claims are objected to based on their dependence. REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112: (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. Claims 26-31, 34, & 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claim 26 recites the duration of maintaining the metal substrate. This feature is indefinite for two reasons. First, the term duration was not introduced in any parent claim. As such, claim 26 must be amended to recite ‘a duration.’ Second, the concept of maintaining the metal substrate is introduced in claim 24, while claim 26 is dependent on claim 22. Claim 26 should likely be amended to depend from claim 24. Claim 28 contains the same two issues and is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 30 recites the plane of the surface of both the upper and lower tool. Neither the plane nor the surface was previously introduced. As such, this constitutes improper antecedent basis. Claim 34 recites the surface of the face. The surface was not previously introduced and constitutes improper antecedent basis. Claim 44 recites the thickness of the film. The thickness was not previously introduced and constitutes improper antecedent basis. Claims 27, 29, 31, and 45 are rejected based on their dependence. ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER Claims 21-25, 32-33, 35-43, & 46-47 are allowable over the prior art. Regarding independent claim 21, WO 2015/114581 to Bertozzini teaches attaching metal mesh (3) to the face (2a) of [a] metal substrate (2). See Bertozzini Fig. 1 and pg. 12, ln. 5 to pg. 16, ln. 32. Bertozzini also teaches providing a film…[that is] brought into contact with mesh and substrate. Bertozzini does not, however, teach heating the elements or then hot stamping them together. (Bertozzini teaches col molding the components together.) Nor does Bertozzini specifically teach the film has a layer of the recited polymers. The prior art does teach hot stamping coating cookware, such U.S. 2018/0344082 to Lim, which teaches hot forming a film having the recited polymers onto a metal substrate. See Lim [0012]-[0015], [0036], & [0042]-[0058]. But Lim does not teach or suggest a mesh being stamped as well. As such, the prior art does not teach or suggest all of the features of independent claim 1. Claims 22-25, 32-33, 35-43, & 46-47 are allowable based on their dependence. Claim 26-31, 34, & 44-45 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. CONCLUSION Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’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. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. 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. 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. /MOSHE WILENSKY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 28, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12575825
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A GRIPPING SURFACE FOR AN END EFFECTOR AND SURGICAL INSTRUMENT COMPRISING A GRIPPING END EFFECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571311
EROSION-SHIELDED TURBINE BLADES AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564884
IMPLANTABLE OBJECTS FABRICATED BY ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING AND METHODS OF FABRICATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12545555
AN EXTENSION YOKE FOR SELF-HOISTING CRANE, A SELF-HOISTING WIND TURBINE CRANE WITH AN EXTENSION YOKE, AND USE OF AN EXTENSION YOKE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12544556
BLOOD PUMP HOUSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
75%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+16.1%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 718 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