Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/676,144

Single Panel Roll-up Door

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Feb 19, 2022
Examiner
HANES JR., JOHN
Art Unit
3634
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
51 granted / 108 resolved
-4.8% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+38.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
150
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
48.1%
+8.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
§112
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 108 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . Continued Examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/28/2025 has been entered. 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 11, 15, and 19 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. Claim 11 recites the limitation “the left and right roller brackets”. It is unclear as to whether this recitation refers to the right and left roller brackets introduced in claim 11, or the left and right roller brackets introduced in claim 8. Please clarify. Claim 15 recites the limitation “the left and right roller brackets”. It is unclear as to whether this recitation refers to the right and left roller brackets introduced in claim 15, or the left and right roller brackets introduced in claim 12. Please clarify. Claim 19 recites the limitation “the left and right roller brackets”. It is unclear as to whether this recitation refers to the right and left roller brackets introduced in claim 19, or the left and right roller brackets introduced in claim 16. Please clarify. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. 5,915,445 – Rauenbusch in view of PG Pub. US 2003/0127198 A1 – Court et al., hereinafter Court. Regarding claim 8. Rauenbusch discloses a roll-up door comprising: a multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite (Rauenbusch discloses a composite panel made up of thermoplastic layers 11 and 12, and a fiber layer 13. See fig 2) panel (10, fig 2) having one-piece, unitary construction with at least a left edge, an opposing right edge, a front side (See at reference character 10 in fig 2) and an opposing rear side (See at reference character 20 in fig 2) wherein the front side and the rear side are substantially planar (See fig 2); wherein multiple recessed channels (14, fig 2) extend as grooves through (completely through in a lateral direction from left to right on a rear side. See fig 2) the rear side of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel, which recessed channels define a plurality of plateaus (See at reference character 20 in fig 2) therebetween on the rear side of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel, wherein each of the recessed channels extends from the left edge to the right edge to a depth through the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel not to exceed the front side (See fig 2); wherein the front side is defined by a continuous surface (See fig 2), which solid single panel of fiber reinforced thermoplastic defines flexible floors of the recessed channels (See fig 1); wherein the door is flexible across the flexible floors of the recessed channels (See fig 1); and wherein the door is substantially inflexible across each of the plateaus (See fig 1). Rauenbusch does not disclose a left roller bracket coupled to the panel's left edge and a right roller bracket coupled to the panel's right edge, the left roller bracket and the right roller bracket strengthening the edges of at least one of the plurality of plateaus; or a solid composite single panel of fiber reinforced thermoplastic. However, Court teaches a left roller bracket (406 fig 2a. See also fig 4a) coupled to the panel's left edge (See fig 2a) and a right roller bracket (opposite 406 fig 2a. See also fig 4a) coupled to the panel's right edge (See fig 2a), the left roller bracket and the right roller bracket strengthening the edges of at least one of the plurality of plateaus (See fig 2a and 4a); and a solid single composite panel of fiber reinforced thermoplastic (Paragraph [0028]; The panel 112 can be constructed from a unitary sheet of material comprising a fiber and resin composite). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the door of Rauenbusch with the roller brackets of Court. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of making provision for the attachment of rollers to the door. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door of Rauenbusch with the glass fibers of Court. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of reducing the stretchability of the panel while allowing it to remain flexible (See paragraph [0028] of Court.) to increase the durability of the panel by reducing the likelihood of cracking due to fatigue. Regarding claim 9. The combination of Rauenbusch and Court teaches all limitations of claim 8. Rauenbusch further discloses the recessed channels (14, fig 2) are grooves formed in the rear side of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel to a depth less than a thickness of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel (See fig 2). Regarding claim 10. The combination of Rauenbusch and Court teaches all limitations of claim 8. Rauenbusch does not disclose left rollers mounted to the left edge and right rollers mounted to the right edge of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel, wherein the left rollers and the right rollers are disposed in respective left guide tracks and right guide tracks attached to opposite sides of a framed opening, each of the left and right guide tracks having a vertical portion and a horizontal portion, wherein each of the guide tracks bends at an arch between the vertical portion and the horizontal portion. However, Court teaches left rollers mounted to the left edge (See annotated fig 2 below) and right rollers mounted to the right edge (See annotated fig 2 below) of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel (204, fig 2), wherein the left rollers and the right rollers are disposed in respective left guide tracks (104, fig 1) and right guide tracks (102, fig 1) attached to opposite sides of a framed opening (110, fig 1), each of the left and right guide tracks having a vertical portion and a horizontal portion (See fig 1), wherein each of the guide tracks bends at an arch between the vertical portion and the horizontal portion (See fig 1). PNG media_image1.png 710 729 media_image1.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door of Rauenbusch with the rollers and tracks of Court. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of easing operation of the door by reducing friction by converting a sliding motion to a rolling one. Regarding claim 11. The combination of Rauenbusch and Court teaches all limitations of claim 10. Rauenbusch does not disclose right roller brackets mounted to the right edge of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at least at some of the plateaus and left roller brackets mounted to the left edge of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at least at some of the plateaus, wherein the left and right roller brackets enhance the rigidity of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at the attached plateaus. However, Court further teaches right roller brackets (See annotated fig 2 above) mounted to the right edge of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at least at some of the plateaus and left roller brackets (See annotated fig 2 above) mounted to the left edge of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at least at some of the plateaus, wherein the left and right roller brackets enhance the rigidity (Rigidity is enhanced at least partially due to the addition of material at the brackets.) of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at the attached plateaus. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the door of Rauenbusch with the roller brackets of Court. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of strengthening the connection of the rollers to the door. Regarding claim 12. Rauenbusch discloses a roll-up door comprising: a multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel (10, fig 2) having one-piece, unitary construction with at least a left edge, an opposing right edge, a front side (at reference character 10 in fig 2) and an opposing rear side (at reference character 20 in fig 2); wherein multiple recessed channels (14, fig 2) are formed in the rear side, defining a plurality of plateaus therebetween (at reference character 20 in fig 2) on the rear side of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel, wherein each of the recessed channels extends from the left edge to the right edge through the rear side (entirely through in a lateral direction from left to right on a rear side. See fig 2) to a depth between the rear side and the front side as grooves of reduced thickness in the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel (See fig 2) wherein each of the recessed channels extends from the left edge to the right edge (See fig 2); wherein the front side is defined by a solid single panel with a continuous surface (See at 10 in fig 2); wherein the door is flexible across floors of the recessed channels (See fig 1); and wherein the door is substantially inflexible across each of the plateaus (See fig 1). Rauenbusch does not disclose a left roller bracket coupled to the panel's left edge and a right roller bracket coupled to the panel's right edge, the left roller bracket and the right roller bracket strengthening the edges of at least one of the plurality of plateaus; or a solid single composite panel of fiber reinforced thermoplastic. However, Court teaches a left roller bracket (406 fig 2a. See also fig 4a) coupled to the panel's left edge (See fig 2a) and a right roller bracket (opposite 406 fig 2a. See also fig 4a) coupled to the panel's right edge (See fig 2a), the left roller bracket and the right roller bracket strengthening the edges of at least one of the plurality of plateaus (See fig 2a and 4a); and a solid single composite panel of fiber reinforced thermoplastic (Paragraph [0028]; The panel 112 can be constructed from a unitary sheet of material comprising a fiber and resin composite). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the door of Rauenbusch with the roller brackets of Court. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of making provision for the attachment of rollers to the door. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door of Rauenbusch with the glass fibers of Court. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of reducing the stretchability of the panel while allowing it to remain flexible (See paragraph [0028] of Court.) to increase the durability of the panel by reducing the likelihood of cracking due to fatigue. Regarding claim 13. The combination of Rauenbusch and Court teaches all limitations of claim 12. Rauenbusch discloses the recessed channels (14, fig 2) are grooves formed in the rear side of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel to a depth less than a thickness of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel (See fig 2). Regarding claim 14. The combination of Rauenbusch and Court teaches all limitations of claim 12. Rauenbusch does not disclose left rollers mounted to the left edge and right rollers mounted to the right edge of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel, wherein the left rollers and the right rollers are disposed in respective left guide tracks and right guide tracks attached to opposite sides of a framed opening, each of the left and right guide tracks having a vertical portion and a horizontal portion, wherein each of the guide tracks bends at an arch between the vertical portion and the horizontal portion. However, Court teaches left rollers mounted to the left edge (See annotated fig 2 below) and right rollers mounted to the right edge (See annotated fig 2 below) of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel (204, fig 2), wherein the left rollers and the right rollers are disposed in respective left guide tracks (104, fig 1) and right guide tracks (102, fig 1) attached to opposite sides of a framed opening (110, fig 1), each of the left and right guide tracks having a vertical portion and a horizontal portion (See fig 1), wherein each of the guide tracks bends at an arch between the vertical portion and the horizontal portion (See fig 1). PNG media_image1.png 710 729 media_image1.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door of Rauenbusch with the rollers and tracks of Court. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of easing operation of the door by reducing friction by converting a sliding motion to a rolling one. Regarding claim 15. The combination of Rauenbusch and Court teaches all limitations of claim 14. Rauenbusch does not disclose right roller brackets mounted to the right edge of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at least at some of the plateaus and left roller brackets mounted to the left edge of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at least at some of the plateaus, wherein the left and right roller brackets enhance the rigidity of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at the attached plateaus. However, Court teaches right roller brackets (See annotated fig 2) mounted to the right edge of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at least at some of the plateaus and left roller brackets (See annotated fig 2) mounted to the left edge of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at least at some of the plateaus, wherein the left and right roller brackets enhance the rigidity (Rigidity is enhanced at least partially due to the addition of material at the brackets.) of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at the attached plateaus. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the door of Rauenbusch with the roller brackets of Court. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of strengthening the connection of the rollers to the door. Regarding claim 16. Rauenbusch discloses a roll-up door comprising: a multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel (10, fig 2) having one-piece unitary construction with at least a left edge, an opposing right edge, a front side (See at 10, fig 2) and an opposing rear side (See at 20, fig 2), wherein multiple recessed channels (14, fig 2) are formed in the rear side, each of the recessed channels having a channel width and the recessed channels defining a plurality of plateaus (See at 20, fig 2) therebetween, each of the plateaus having a plateau width between corresponding pairs of recessed channels (See fig 2), wherein each of the recessed channels extends from the left edge to the right edge through the rear side (through in a lateral direction from left to right on a rear side. See fig 2) to form grooves having a depth between the rear side and the front side of reduced thickness in the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel (See fig 2); wherein the plateau width is greater than the channel width (See fig 2); wherein the front side is defined by a solid single panel with a continuous surface (See at 10, fig 2); wherein the door is flexible across floors of the recessed channels (See fig 1); and wherein the door is substantially inflexible across each of the plateaus (See fig 1). Rauenbusch does not disclose a left roller bracket coupled to the panel's left edge and a right roller bracket coupled to the panel's right edge, the left roller bracket and the right roller bracket strengthening the edges of at least one of the plurality of plateaus; or a solid single composite panel of fiber reinforced thermoplastic. However, Court teaches a left roller bracket (406 fig 2a. See also fig 4a) coupled to the panel's left edge (See fig 2a) and a right roller bracket (opposite 406 fig 2a. See also fig 4a) coupled to the panel's right edge (See fig 2a), the left roller bracket and the right roller bracket strengthening the edges of at least one of the plurality of plateaus (See fig 2a and 4a); and a solid single composite panel of fiber reinforced thermoplastic (Paragraph [0028]; The panel 112 can be constructed from a unitary sheet of material comprising a fiber and resin composite). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the door of Rauenbusch with the roller brackets of Court. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of making provision for the attachment of rollers to the door. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door of Rauenbusch with the glass fibers of Court. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of reducing the stretchability of the panel while allowing it to remain flexible (See paragraph [0028] of Court.). Regarding claim 17. The combination of Rauenbusch and Court teaches all limitations of claim 16. Rauenbusch further discloses the recessed channels (14, fig 2) are grooves formed in the rear side of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel to a depth less than a thickness of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel (See fig 2). Regarding claim 18. The combination of Rauenbusch and Court teaches all limitations of claim 16. Rauenbusch does not disclose left rollers mounted to the left edge and right rollers mounted to the right edge of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel, wherein the left rollers and the right rollers are disposed in respective left guide tracks and right guide tracks attached to opposite sides of a framed opening, each of the left and right guide tracks having a vertical portion and a horizontal portion, wherein each of the guide tracks bends at an arch between the vertical portion and the horizontal portion. However, Court teaches left rollers mounted to the left edge (See annotated fig 2 below) and right rollers mounted to the right edge (See annotated fig 2 below) of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel (204, fig 2), wherein the left rollers and the right rollers are disposed in respective left guide tracks (104, fig 1) and right guide tracks (102, fig 1) attached to opposite sides of a framed opening (110, fig 1), each of the left and right guide tracks having a vertical portion and a horizontal portion (See fig 1), wherein each of the guide tracks bends at an arch between the vertical portion and the horizontal portion (See fig 1). PNG media_image1.png 710 729 media_image1.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door of Rauenbusch with the rollers and tracks of Court. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of easing operation of the door. Regarding claim 19. The combination of Rauenbusch and Court teaches all limitations of claim 18. Rauenbusch does not disclose right roller brackets mounted to the right edge of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at least at some of the plateaus and left roller brackets mounted to the left edge of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at least at some of the plateaus, wherein the left and right roller brackets enhance the rigidity of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at the attached plateaus. However, Court further teaches right roller brackets (See second annotated fig 2 above) mounted to the right edge of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at least at some of the plateaus and left roller brackets (See second annotated fig 2 above) mounted to the left edge of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at least at some of the plateaus, wherein the left and right roller brackets enhance the rigidity (Rigidity is enhanced at least partially due to the addition of material at the brackets.) of the multilayer thermoplastic fibrous composite panel at the attached plateaus. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the door of Rauenbusch with the roller brackets of Court. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of strengthening the connection of the rollers to the door. Regarding claim 20. The combination of Rauenbusch and Court teaches all limitations of claim 16. Rauenbusch does not disclose the multilayer fiber reinforced thermoplastic includes glass fibers as reinforcement to the thermoplastic. However, Court teaches the multilayer fiber reinforced thermoplastic includes glass fibers (Paragraph [0028]; The fiber can include virtually any fibrous material, for example but in no means by limitation, fiber glass,) as reinforcement to the thermoplastic. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door of Rauenbusch with the glass fibers of Court. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of reducing the stretchability of the panel while allowing it to remain flexible (See paragraph [0028] of Court.). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the limitation “a left roller bracket coupled to the panel's left edge and a right roller bracket coupled to the panel's right edge, the left roller bracket and the right roller bracket strengthening the edges of at least one of the plurality of plateaus.” Is not found in the prior art. This is not persuasive, as Court teaches a left roller bracket (406 fig 2a. See also fig 4a) coupled to the panel's left edge (See fig 2a) and a right roller bracket (opposite 406 fig 2a. See also fig 4a) coupled to the panel's right edge (See fig 2a), the left roller bracket and the right roller bracket strengthening the edges of at least one of the plurality of plateaus (See fig 2a and 4a). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W HANES JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST. 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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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. /J.W.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3634 /DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 19, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 07, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 11, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 11, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 18, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 12, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 24, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 26, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 20, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 05, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 19, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 04, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 04, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 06, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 19, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 05, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 24, 2025
Interview Requested
Feb 04, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 04, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 10, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Oct 28, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594443
Safety System with Digital Tracking and Reporting and Method of Use
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590463
PRIVACY SHADE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577832
A DOOR OPERATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571254
DOOR ASSEMBLY HAVING A SOFT BOTTOMED DOOR PANEL AND SYSTEM AND METHOD OF DRIVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565807
RESISTANCE REGULATING DEVICE FOR ROPE-FREE CURTAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+38.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 108 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