Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/047,560

PARENT-CHILD PIC MODULE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 18, 2022
Examiner
KIM, KEON NMN
Art Unit
2841
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Geodynamics Inc.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
50 granted / 67 resolved
+6.6% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
86
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
72.1%
+32.1% vs TC avg
§102
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
§112
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 67 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 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelps et al. (International application publication WO 2019147294 A1, hereinafter “Phelps”), in view of Macgillivray (US 20210230986 A1, and hereinafter “Macgillivray”). Regarding claim 1, Phelps teaches a detonator module comprising: a housing comprising: a first housing half (Fig. 7, [0099] : a half of the detonator block 640); and a second housing half (Fig. 7, [0099] : a half of the detonator block 640); a detonator (Fig. 7, [0099] : detonator 642) contained within the housing (Fig. 7, [0099] : detonator 642 is within the detonator block 640); a child board (Fig. 7, [00100-00101] : printed circuit board PCB 648) comprising a terminal header (Fig. 7, [00100-00101] wire header 654), wherein the child board is contained within the housing (Fig. 7, [00100-00101] : printed circuit board 648 is within the detonator block 640 ) a plurality of switch leads (Fig. 7, [00101-00103] : addressable switch assembly 232’s leads) connecting the switch to the terminal header (Fig. 7, [00101-00103] : addressable switch assembly 232 connects with the wire header 654). Phelps does not teach the first housing half exposes the terminal header to an exterior of the housing; a switch mounted on an exterior surface of the second housing half. However, Macgillivray teaches the first housing half exposes the terminal header to an exterior of the housing (Fig. 2-3, [0030-0032] : housing of detonator module 200 exposes the wire-to-board connection 240, 250, and 270 to an exterior of the housing of the detonator module 200); a switch (Fig. 2-3, [0030-0032] : communication pads 245 and 265) mounted on an exterior surface of the second housing half (Fig. 2-3, [0030-0032] : communication pads 245 and 265 are mounted on an exterior surface of the housing of the detonator module 200). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate terminal header and the switch as taught by Macgillivray into Phelps’ detonator module by adding the wire-to-bard connection and the communication pads to the exterior of the detonator housing. The suggestion / motivation for doing so would be to provide the user a quick access to the detonator terminal header, provide the user an additional access to the internal circuitry without the need to dismantle the detonator, and allow external communication ([0030-0032] of Macgillivray). Regarding claim 2, Phelps as modified by Macgillivray teaches the detonator module of claim 1, wherein the child board further comprises a pin connection (Fig. 7, [00100] of Phelps : pins 646A-A and 646B-B) at an uphole end to communicate with an uphole assembly (Fig. 7, [00100] of Phelps : pins 646A-A and 646B-B include thru-lines that continue to next gun assembly) and a pin connection (Fig. 7, [00100] of Phelps : pins 647A to 647C) at a downhole end to communicate with a downhole assembly Fig. 7, [00100] of Phelps : pins 647A to 647C include thru-line to continue to next assembly). Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelps and Macgillivray combination as applied above, in view of Katsuzawa et al. (US 20020050752 A1, hereinafter “Katsuzawa”) Regarding claim 3, Phelps as modified by Macgillivray teaches the detonator module of claim 1. Phelps as modified by Macgillivray does not teach wherein the terminal header is a screw terminal type. However, Katsuzawa teaches wherein the terminal header is a screw terminal type (Fig. 2-3, [0036] : cables 70 is fixed to the conducting portion 23 of the lead connector 21 by means of screw 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate screw type lead connector as taught by Katsuzawa into Phelps and Macgillivray combination’s detonator module. The suggestion / motivation for doing so would be to hold the leads firmly. Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelps and Macgillivray combination as applied above, in view of Keppler et al. (US 20150107090 A1, hereinafter “Keppler”) Regarding claim 4, Phelps as modified by Macgillivray teaches the detonator module of claim 1, Phelps as modified by Macgillivray does not teach wherein the switch is a flying lead addressable switch. However, Keppler teaches wherein the switch is a flying lead addressable switch (Fig. 2, [0051] : detonator system 200 with addressable switch 201 with flexible wires 203). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the flexible wires as taught by Keppler into Phelps and Macgillivray combination’s detonator module. The suggestion / motivation for doing so would be to allow flexibility in housing structure and component location. Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelps and Macgillivray combination as applied above, in view of Shinotake (US 20180005733 A1, hereinafter “Shinotake”) Regarding claim 5, Phelps as modified by Macgillivray teaches the detonator module of claim 1. Phelps as modified by Macgillivray does not teach wherein a mouse ear shunt is connected to the child board. However, Shinotake teaches wherein a mouse ear shunt (Fig. 1A-1B, [0046-0054] : shunt with portion 132, 134, and 136) is connected to the child board (Fig. 1A-1B, [0046-0054] : shunt 132, 134, and 136 is connected to the printed circuit board 105). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the shunt as taught by Shinotake into Phelps and Macgillivray combination’s detonator module. The suggestion / motivation for doing so would be to provide safety mechanism against overcurrent. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEON KIM whose telephone number is (703)756-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM. 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, Allen L Parker can be reached on 303-297-4722. 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. /ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /KEON NMN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 18, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 30, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 06, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 15, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 18, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 29, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 07, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 02, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 03, 2025
Notice of Allowance
Jun 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602088
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604422
Separable Control Box Module
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593414
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575040
STACKABLE MODULAR ELECTRONIC DEVICE SYSTEM AND ASSOCIATED DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12560962
LAPTOP CASE WITH FOLDABLE SHADE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+23.1%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 67 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