Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/010,723

DETONATOR BLACK BOX

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Dec 15, 2022
Examiner
BERGIN, JAMES S
Art Unit
3641
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Austin Star Detonator Company
OA Round
4 (Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
792 granted / 999 resolved
+27.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1022
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
§112
36.0%
-4.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 999 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION 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. Claims 6-12,14-16 and 20-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12/044,516 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 6-12, 14-16 and 20-27 of the instant application are obvious in view of claims 1-18 of the ‘516 patent. Claims 6-12,14-16 and 20-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No.12/529,550 B2 (application No. 18/778,335). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 6-12,14-16 and 20-27 of the instant application are obvious in view of claims 1-18 of the ‘550 patent. Response to Amendment Please confirm that claims 1 and 5 have been canceled. Claims 2-4, 7,13 and 17-19 have previously been canceled by the applicant. Any canceled claim should include the claim identifier (Cancelled) as distinct from (Cancel). The above listed obvious type double patenting rejections were previously presented in the prior office action mailed on 10/02/2025 and are retained herein because both of the terminal disclaimers filed on 02/02/2026 have been disapproved by the Patent legal Research Center for the following reason: “The person who signed the terminal disclaimer is not the applicant, patentee or an attorney or agent of record. 37 CFR 1.321(a) and (b). (See FP 14.26.08)”. To remedy this situation, please file a POA that gives power to the attorney who is signing the TD, along with another copy of the TD, or file a TD that is signed by the applicant. (No new fee required). Allowable Subject Matter Subject to an updated search, independent claim 15 and the claims dependent therefrom would be allowable upon the filing of corrected terminal disclaimers. 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 JAMES S BERGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5am. 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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 571-272-6874. 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. /JAMES S BERGIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 15, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 15, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 06, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 12, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Sep 18, 2024
Response Filed
May 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Aug 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Feb 02, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 28, 2026
Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601573
METHOD AND TOOL FOR PRODUCING A BASE PIECE OF A MULTI-PART CARTRIDGE CASE, BASE PIECE AND CARTRIDGE CASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601575
RANGE EXTENSION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584719
IMPROVED END CAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584718
EMBEDDED ELECTRONIC FIREWORK IGNITER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571620
AMMUNITION PRESS AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+9.9%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 999 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