Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/971,401

Break-resistant electric remote control

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 21, 2022
Examiner
AKINYEMI, AJIBOLA A
Art Unit
2649
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Fm Marketing GmbH
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
746 granted / 931 resolved
+18.1% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
956
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
66.1%
+26.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
§112
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 931 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1, 14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goetzke (Pub. No.: US 2013/0043984 A1) and further in view of VALDMAA (Pub. No.: US 2015/0299439 A1) and TSUKADA (Pub. No.: US 2017/0009002 A1). With respect to claim 1: Goetzke discloses a break-resistant electric remote control for operating an electronic device comprising a plastic housing with a plastic plate segment with a control panel which has at least one control element, preferably button elements (fig. 3A, parag. 0021 discloses a remote control with plastic housing and a button elements); and/or at least one directional pad for operating an electronic device (fig. 3A with IR LED as in parag. 0021); Goetzke does not explicitly disclose wherein the plastic plate segment is formed from a plastic material which has an Charpy impact strength, in particular in the case of a notched specimen, of more than 6 kJ/m2, in particular of 9.0 kJ/m2 +/- 0.3 kJ/m2, wherein characterized in that the plastic material is formed as an at least partially isosorbide-based polymer. VALDMAA discloses polymer composition from mixed plastic waste with charpy impact strength as in claim 6 and parag. 0013). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the teaching of VALDMAA into the teaching of Goetzke in order to recycle unsorted mixed plastic waste into new materials. Goetzke and VALDMAA disclose the claimed invention except for a notched specimen, of more than 6 kJ/m2, in particular of 9.0 kJ/m2 +/- 0.3 kJ/m2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a notched specimen, of more than 6 kJ/m2, in particular of 9.0 kJ/m2 +/- 0.3 kJ/m2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. TSUKADA discloses plastic material formed as an at least partially isosorbide-based polymer (parag. 0005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of TSUKADA into the teaching of Goetzke in view of VALDMAA in order to provide a polythiourethane-based polymerizable composition from which an optical material having excellent properties of transparency, a refractive index, heat resistance, strength, and the like is obtained. With respect to claim 14: TSUKADA discloses the remote control according to claim 1, wherein the plastic material is executed as an isosorbide-based thermoplastic, in particular as a polycarbonate (parag. 0005). With respect to claim 16: Goetzke discloses the remote control according to claim 1, wherein the plastic housing comprises at least an upper shell and a lower shell, and is particularly preferably formed monolithically therefrom, the upper shell and the lower shell being formed from the plastic material (fig. 3A). With respect to claim 17: Goetzke discloses the remote control according to claim 1, wherein individual control elements, preferably all control elements, are part of the plastic plate segment in such a way that the plastic plate segment is monolithic (fig. 3A with the control button shown). With respect to claim 18: VALDMAA discloses the remote control according to claim 1, wherein the plastic material has a coloring for laser-marking of the material (parag. 0036). With respect to claim 19: The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated; SUKADA further discloses the at least partially isosorbide-based polymer (parag. 0005). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-13, 15, 20 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. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 11/5/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, applicant argued that none of the cited prior arts of record discloses plastic plate segment is formed from a plastic material which has an Charpy impact strength, in particular in the case of a notched specimen, of more than 6 kJ/m2, in particular of 9.0 kJ/m2 +/- 0.3 kJ/m2, wherein characterized in that the plastic material is formed as an at least partially isosorbide-based polymer. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. VALDMAA discloses general conditions of a claim in parag. 0013, 0042 and 0069, therefore discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. TSUKADA also discloses plastic material formed as an at least partially isosorbide-based polymer (parag. 0005). 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 AJIBOLA A AKINYEMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm, 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, YUWEN PAN can be reached at (571)-272-7855. 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. /AJIBOLA A AKINYEMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 21, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 05, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597961
CIRCUIT REDUNDANCY AND WEAR BALANCING TO IMPROVE CIRCUIT LIFETIME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587876
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF NETWORK EQUIPMENT AND DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587137
Receiver Circuit
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586924
Antenna System Architecture with Calibration Feedback Routing for Per Element Calibration with Digital Beamformer
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587224
RADIO FREQUENCY SIGNAL SPLITTING WITH DIFFERENTIAL FILTER AND LOW NOISE AMPLIFIERS
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
80%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+18.7%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 931 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