Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/213,906

FIRE EXTINGUISHER BRACKET HOLDER WITH EJECTION BUTTON SWITCH DEVICE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jun 26, 2023
Examiner
SMITH, NKEISHA
Art Unit
3632
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
991 granted / 1365 resolved
+20.6% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1402
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
34.0%
-6.0% vs TC avg
§102
33.5%
-6.5% vs TC avg
§112
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1365 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . The following correspondence is a Final Office Action for application no. 18/213,906 for a FIRE EXTINGUISHER BRACKET HOLDER WITH EJECTION BUTTN SWITCH DEVICE, filed on 6/26/2023. This correspondence is in response to applicant's reply filed on 10/21/2025. 1-2 and 8-10 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 1-2 and 8-10 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 contains the limitation regarding “wherein a fastening force of the fire extinguisher bracket clamp and the fire extinguisher bracket holder ejection button switch assembly is detected.” It is unclear what is the purpose of the detection of the fastening force. That is, how does the detection of the fastening force relate to the structure of the bracket holder. Appropriate clarification is requested. Claims 2 and 8-10 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 10. Further, with regard to claim 1, which claims the limitation regarding “wherein a fastening force of the fire extinguisher bracket clamp and the fire extinguisher bracket holder ejection button switch assembly is detected and failure in a fastening process is diagnosed by a multi-level feature fusion algorithm model.” It is unclear whether applicant is claiming that the multi-level feature fusion algorithm model both detects the fastening force and diagnoses the failure in a fastening process or only diagnoses the failure in a fastening process. Appropriate clarification is requested. Claims 2 and 8-10 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 10. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 2 and 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 8-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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. /NKEISHA SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 October 31, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 26, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 21, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590671
Combined tripod
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590673
UTILITY CLAMPING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12570184
END CAP FOR A RAIL AND LONGITUDINAL ADJUSTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570222
COVER ASSEMBLIES FOR SEAT RAIL AT VEHICLE FLOOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565946
Pipe Support Member
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
90%
With Interview (+17.0%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1365 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month