Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 17, 2026
Application No. 19/213,071

NOSE PIECE FOR STRAND CUTTER

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
May 20, 2025
Priority
Jan 31, 2020 — provisional 62/968,789 +4 more
Examiner
RILEY, JONATHAN G
Art Unit
3724
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
General Technologies Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 9m
Est. Remaining
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allowance Rate
340 granted / 650 resolved
-17.7% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
701
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
45.9%
+5.9% vs TC avg
§102
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
§112
35.4%
-4.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 650 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6-25-2026 has been entered. Claim 16 was amended. Claims 16-21 are pending. 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. Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of of U.S. Patent No. 12,330,206 to Sorkin. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: In re Claim 16, US 12,330,206 claims a blade assembly for a strand cutter, comprising: a rotating shear blade assembly that comprises a drive gear engagement (see claim 10); a rotatable blade mount (see Col. 8, ll. 40-47, teaching a rotatable blade mount); a shear blade (see Col. 8, ll. 40-47 teaching a blade); wherein the rotating shear blade assembly comprises the drive gear engagement and the rotatable blade mount (see Col. 8, ll. 44-53, teaching a gear drive engagement and a rotatable blade mount); wherein the rotating shear blade assembly further comprises a mounting shoulder (see Col. 8, ll. 38-43), wherein the drive gear engagement is mounted to the mounting shoulder and the rotatable blade mount is mounted to the mounting shoulder (see Col. 8, ll. 44-57):wherein the drive gear engagement is a non-circular protuberance configured to engage a corresponding opening in a drive assembly so as to allow transmission of torque from the drive assembly to the rotatable blade mount (see Claim 10), and further wherein the rotatable blade mount comprises a blade receptacle that is configured to receive the shear blade (see Col. 8, ll. 44-48). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 17-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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. /JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 20, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP
Sep 16, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 15, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §DP
May 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 25, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12734719
SYRINGE CUTTER
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12722927
FEEDING UNIT FOR FEEDING A PLASTIC FILM
4y 9m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12722318
Capsule cutting apparatus and method
3y 3m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12697745
SMART DIE OUTPUT LANE ASSEMBLY
1y 10m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12686141
ELECTRO-PNEUMATIC CABLE CUTTER ASSEMBLY FOR AIRCRAFT HOIST
3y 10m to grant Granted Jul 21, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+30.3%)
3y 1m (~1y 9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 650 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