Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/144,862

MAGNETIC ATTRACTION FIXING STRUCTURE FOR SHOWER HEAD

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
May 09, 2023
Examiner
BETIT, JACOB F
Art Unit
3752
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Protech (Xiamen) Industry Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
35%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 11m
To Grant
51%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 35% of cases
35%
Career Allow Rate
53 granted / 151 resolved
-34.9% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 11m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
178
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 151 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on January 17, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “end surface of the first magnetic attraction mechanism flushes with the back surface of the shower body when the first magnetic attraction mechanism is not being moved” recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the end surface of the first magnetic attraction mechanism being flush with the back surface of the shower body when the first magnetic attraction mechanism is not being moved when the shower component is not attached to the fixing component, does not reasonably provide enablement for the end surface of the first magnetic attraction mechanism being flush with the back surface of the shower body when the first magnetic attraction mechanism is not being moved when the shower component is attached to the fixing component. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Figure 5 shows the shower component mounted to the fixing component and the first magnetic attraction mechanism not being moved.. Yet, the end surface of the first magnetic attraction mechanism is not flush with the back surface of the shower body. 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 1-19 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 1 recites the limitation “…is perpendicularly movable away from the back surface” in line 5. The claim fails to provide a reference to determine the perpendicular direction. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the connecting buckles are biased to eject out pf the inner side walls” in lines 17-18. The claim fails to recite structure for accomplishing the function of biasing. The structure recited in the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function recited in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a first magnetic attraction mechanism…a second magnetic attraction mechanism” in lines 3-4 and 10-11, respectively. In order to be magnetic, at least one of the first and second magnetic attraction mechanisms must be a magnet and the other an iron containing material, or both of the first and second magnetic attraction mechanisms must be magnets. The specification is only enabling for both of the first and second magnetic attraction mechanisms must be magnets. Yet a magnet is not required until claims 9 and 14. The structure recited in claim 1 is not commensurate in scope with the function of being magnetic. The term “adjacent” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “adjacent” is defined as: near. The determination of what constitutes being adjacent requires a subjective interpretation. What may be considered near to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered near to another of ordinary skill in the art. Claim 5 recites the limitation “two ends” in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “two ends” recited in line 2. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30. 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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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. /CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM Examiner Art Unit 3752 CK
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 09, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 19, 2025
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 9339688
CORE EXERCISE APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted May 17, 2016
Patent 9043275
DATA SYNCHRONIZATION USING STRING MATCHING
2y 5m to grant Granted May 26, 2015
Patent 9026539
RANKING SUPERVISED HASHING
2y 5m to grant Granted May 05, 2015
Patent 9020954
RANKING SUPERVISED HASHING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2015
Patent 8819054
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 26, 2014
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
35%
Grant Probability
51%
With Interview (+16.3%)
4y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 151 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