Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/335,445

MULTIDIMENSIONAL DEMONSTRATION METHOD AND DEVICE FOR FERROFLUID

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 15, 2023
Examiner
FRISBY, KESHA
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Chongqing Meisheng Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
397 granted / 755 resolved
-17.4% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
781
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§103
34.0%
-6.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
14.4%
-25.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 755 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 Canada on June 15, 2022 It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2002106779983 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Note: Priority Documents have been filed but the certified copy has not. Claim Objections Claims 1-27 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims have element numbers, for example, “(2)” in the claims. They should not be included in the claims. Appropriate correction is required. 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 19-27 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. Claims 11-18 are directed to a multidimensional demonstration device for ferrofluid, claims 19-21, is directed to a demonstration method based on the multidimensional demonstration device for ferrofluid and claims 22-27 are directed to the demonstration method for the multidimensional demonstration for ferrofluid. Claims 19-27, are dependent upon a different statutory class. These claims are drafted in a manner that appears to be aiming to claim two statutory classes in one. Therefore, the Examiner is unclear as to what the Applicant is trying to claim. 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) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe et al. (U.S. Patent Number 11,498,270). Referring to claim 1, Rowe et al. discloses comprising a container (Figs. 2A & 2B), a plurality of magnetic field generators (magnetic field chamber and magnetic array 102), ferrofluid (100), and a transparent medium (Figs. 2A & 2); the container is a closed structure with a hollow interior, and both the ferrofluid and the transparent medium are contained in the container (Figs. 2A & 2B); the container is a curved surface body with at least two planar outer walls, or a polyhedron, M magnetic field generators are installed on each of the at least two planar outer walls of the container (Figs 2 A & 2B), one side wall of a plurality of outer walls of the container without the magnetic field generators installed is set as an observation surface, the observation surface is made of a transparent material, where M is greater than or equal to 1 (Figs. 2A & 2B); during operation, a magnetic field strength of the magnetic field generators is adjusted to control a motion of the ferrofluid in the container, and a user observes a motion trajectory of the ferrofluid through the observation surface (Figs. 2A-4). Rowe et al. does not disclose a curved surface body but Rowe et al. does disclose a square/rectangle surface body as seen in the Figures. Having a curved surface body does not disclose or provide an advantage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have a curved surface body as both bodies’ container the magnetic field. Referring to claim 12, Rowe et al. discloses wherein the planar outer walls of the container with the magnetic field generators installed border to each other (Figs. 2A & 2B). Referring to claim 13, Rowe et al. discloses wherein when M is equal to 1, the motion trajectory of the ferrofluid crosses between inner walls corresponding to different outer planar walls of the container, or splits onto the inner walls corresponding to the different planar outer walls of the container (Figs. 2A & 2B); when M is greater than 1, the motion trajectory of the ferrofluid crosses between inner walls corresponding to different planar outer walls of the container, or splits onto the inner walls corresponding to different planar outer walls of the container, or moves on an inner wall corresponding to the same planar outer wall of the container (1) (Figs. 2A & 2B). Referring to claim 14, Rowe et al. discloses wherein when M is equal to 1, the motion trajectory of the ferrofluid crosses between inner walls corresponding to different outer planar walls of the container, or splits onto the inner walls corresponding to the different planar outer walls of the container (Figs 2A-4); when M is greater than 1, the motion trajectory of the ferrofluid crosses between inner walls corresponding to different planar outer walls of the container, or splits onto the inner walls corresponding to different planar outer walls of the container, or moves on an inner wall corresponding to the same planar outer wall of the container (Figs. 2A-4). Referring to claim 15, Rowe et al. discloses wherein the container is of a rectangular cuboid structure (Figs. 2A & 2B). Referring to claim 16, Rowe et al. discloses wherein the container is of a rectangular cuboid structure (Figs. 2A & 2B). Referring to claim 17, Rowe et al. discloses wherein the container is of a rectangular cuboid structure (Figs. 2A & 2B). Referring to claim 18, Rowe et al. discloses wherein the magnetic field generators (2) are electromagnets (Figs. 2A-4). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KESHA FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)272-8774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 730AM-4PM. 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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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. /KESHA FRISBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 15, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586483
MODULAR CIRCUIT CARD ASSEMBLY FOR ADVANCED TRAINING APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573310
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING A VOCATIONAL MASK WITH A HYPER-ENABLED WORKER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12555489
Large Language Model-Enabled Artificial Intelligence-Based Virtual Interactive Reading Assistant
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12542066
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING PERSONALIZED INTERFACE CONTENT PLANS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12536920
TRANSFORMER TRAINING LAB
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+23.7%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 755 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