Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 35/522,949

Equipment for bench-top cell production apparatus and installation for medical or laboratory use

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Oct 14, 2024
Examiner
MALLEY, MARY S
Art Unit
2943
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Astraveus
OA Round
2 (Final)
95%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 95% — above average
95%
Career Allow Rate
437 granted / 460 resolved
+35.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
3 currently pending
Career history
463
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§102
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
§112
81.3%
+41.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 460 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
AIA The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Specification The title of the design identifies the article in which the design is embodied by the name generally known and used by the public and may contribute to defining the scope of the claim (MPEP 1503.01). The examiner objects to the title because it is not referred to consistently throughout the specification. In some places it is equipment for bench-top cell production, in others it is Equipment for bench-top cell production [apparatus and installation for medical or laboratory use]. The following title is suggested: -- Equipment for bench-top cell production -- Or another title as appropriate. The title must be amended throughout the application, original oath or declaration excepted. Claim rejections The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails 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 claim is indefinite and non-enabling because the visual disclosure of the claimed design as originally filed is of such poor quality that its overall shape and appearance cannot be understood (MPEP § 1504.04), specifically: Due to the poor line quality various edge lines are missing from views, additionally in some areas the lines are jagged and blurry and appear to be bleeding into one another. See examples cited below: PNG media_image1.png 677 798 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 452 894 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 452 894 media_image2.png Greyscale The claim is indefinite and non-enabling because the visual disclosure is inadequate such that the appearance and shape or configuration of the design for which protection is sought cannot be determined or understood (MPEP § 1504.04), specifically: The depth and three-dimensional appearance of the portions identified by darkened coloring below is not clear. PNG media_image3.png 442 990 media_image3.png Greyscale Because of the poor quality and inadequate disclosure, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled. To overcome this rejection, it is suggested that applicant submit new drawings of the claimed design that show the design clearly and consistently. If certain non-enabled portions of the design cannot be fully enabled without the introduction of new matter, applicant may remove from the claim the areas or portions of the design that are considered indefinite and non-enabling by converting them to broken line and amending the specification to indicate those portions form no part of the claimed design. Replacement drawings 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. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. 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. Avoidance of new matter When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). References cited The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Conclusion Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). Contact information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5375. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am - 3:30pm. 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, Michael Stout can be reached on 571.272.0068. 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 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. /MARY SHANNON MALLEY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2924
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 14, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 01, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §112
Mar 24, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 24, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1120341
Medication monitor
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent D1115959
FRAME DESIGN FOR AN EXERCISE MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent D1114269
Display screen and mounting unit assembly for surgical instruments
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent D1107931
Elongated Ice Pod
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent D1107933
LED MASK
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
95%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+5.2%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 460 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