Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/923,550

GLARE SCREEN SYSTEM

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Nov 04, 2022
Examiner
HARTMANN, GARY S
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Intercrate Container Corp.
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
903 granted / 1244 resolved
+20.6% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1291
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.2%
+5.2% vs TC avg
§102
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§112
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1244 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Elvin-Jensen (MX 2015008850 A). Applicant’s prior art clearly discloses all structural limitations. The tapered, hollow shape appears to be shown at least in Figure 9 and would naturally enable stacking (i.e., “receive, at least in part, the paddle of another unit). Regarding claims 19 and 20, the region at 58, relative to the upper portion, meets claim recitations. 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. Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elvin-Jensen (MX 2015008850 A) in view of Pucillo et al. (U.S. Patent 8,070,380). As discussed above, stacking would naturally be enabled. Further, Pucillo exemplifies that it is well known to stack hollow, tapered devices (Figure 4 and claim 7, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Elvin-Jensen in the manner of Pucillo in order to ease storage and transportation, as is the purpose of stacking. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 5-7, 11, 12, 21 and 22 are allowed Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 30 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to claim 13. The examiner maintains the Figure 9 appears to show a tapered shape. With respect to the 103 rejection, the examiner has added a secondary reference in order to demonstrate that the Official notice was proper. Because this reference was added solely to address this issue, this action is properly made final. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30. 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, Thomas Will can be reached at 571272-6998. 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. /GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 04, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 30, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601180
STAIRCASE WHEELCHAIR RAMP ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601127
IMPACT DISSIPATING BOLLARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590426
CRAWLER BRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590423
EDGE SLUMP CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584278
IMPACT ABSORBING POST
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+18.4%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1244 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