Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/111,223

ELECTROMECHANICAL ACTUATOR

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 12, 2025
Examiner
ELAHMADI, ZAKARIA
Art Unit
3618
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
580 granted / 761 resolved
+24.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
810
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
51.8%
+11.8% vs TC avg
§102
35.4%
-4.6% vs TC avg
§112
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 761 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “nut” should be “the nut” since it is mentioned previously. Claim 1 recites “… threaded ends of the rods” should be “… threaded ends of the tow or more rods…” since it was referred as two or more rods previously. Similar issues in claim 2. Claim 1 recites “…by means of a cap…” should be “by means of the cap” since it is introduced previously. Claim 5 recites “…a spindle …” should be “the spindle” since it is introduced previously in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1 recites the limitation " the cap (3)" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation " the outer sleeve (3)" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “…formed by the tubular body…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites “…wherein the centering piece…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites “…separated by the circular inner rib…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites “…separated by the circular inner rib…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “it is being intended for the thrust connectors and the nut to include attachment…” it is unclear whether this limitation is art of the claim. Claim 1 recites “… to include attachment means for attaching the two elements…” it is unclear what “the two elements” are referring to. Claim 1 recites “…preventing the rotation of all elements connected to the rods…” it is unclear which element the applicant is referring to. Claim 2 recites “welded to the stems...” it seems that the applicant is referring “the rods” by the term “stems”. The applicant should be consistent with the terminology and use one of the terms Claim 5 recites “…the spring being provided to couple on the drive shaft...” it is unclear whether it is referring to the C-shaped spring mentioned earlier or is it another spring. Claim 5 recites “…by means of rear cap (25) …” it is unclear whether the applicant is referring the cap (25) mentioned earlier or is it different cap. If it is referring to the same cap then it should be corrected to “…by means of [rear] the cap…”. Claim 6 recites “…relief of closure cap…” it is unclear whether the applicant is referring the cap mentioned earlier or is it different cap. If it is referring to the same cap then it should be corrected to “…relief of [closure] the cap…”. Similar issue in claim 9. Claim 9 recites “…the flange (6) of the closure cap (5) where the nut (13) is housed, with a guide (8) positioned between both flanges, and the assembly is closed with a closure cap (10) …” refers to two different parts by the same terminology. Suggestion: this can be fixed by stating a first enclosure cap, a second enclosure cap etc… Claim 14: “rear closure cap (25)” which has the same numerical reference to “the cap (25)” it is unclear whether the rear closure cap and the cap are referring to the same element. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-14 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. No new matter should be introduced. The prior art of the record for example [CN207333609] or [US Pub 2015/0007677] failed to show the electromechanical actuator includes an irreversibility system containing a drive shaft (35) connected to a spindle (11), or driven shaft, equipped with two keys (34A and 34B) and a C-shaped spring (33), preloaded and encapsulated in an element of revolution (36) a series of right and left, upper and lower securing elements (44SI, 44SD, 44ID, 44II) are screwed to the inner sleeve (14) with screws (44), adjustment nuts (43) and sealing O-rings (42), through threaded boreholes (14A) in the inner sleeve (14) so as to align with the surfaces (8A) of the recesses of a guide (8), in a predefined position for the replacement of spare parts or an operating position with the surface (44A) of the screws (44) tangential to the inner diameter of the inner sleeve (14) and the adjustment nuts (43), sealing the system Conclusion 2. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA ELAHMADI whose telephone number is (571)270-5324. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778 The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ZAKARIA ELAHMADI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 12, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600191
An Off-road Vehicle and Suspension for Such Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602064
ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12577087
OPERATOR CONTROL SYSTEM FOR A MATERIALS HANDLING VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578007
LINEAR DRIVE APPARATUS FOR CONVERTING A ROTATIONAL MOVEMENT INTO A LINEAR MOVEMENT AND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12560227
BALL SCREW DRIVE
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
76%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+11.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 761 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