Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/360,733

INTEGRATED VAPOR FILTER WITH BACKGROUND REJECTION

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Jul 27, 2023
Examiner
LEE, MICHAEL
Art Unit
2422
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Rosemount Aerospace Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
1038 granted / 1310 resolved
+21.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1348
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
§103
41.2%
+1.2% vs TC avg
§102
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§112
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1310 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
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 . 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 1-15 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-16 and 19 of copending Application No. 18/360,737 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. Claims 1-6 are met by copending application claims 1-6. Claim 7 is met by copending application claim 8. Claim 8 is met by copending application claim 9. Claim 9 is met by copending application claim 10. Claim 10 is met by copending application claim 11. Claim 11 is met by copending application claim 12. Claim 12 is met by copending application claim 13. Claims 13-15 are met by copending application claims 14-16. Claim 17 is met by copending application claim 19. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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 8-12 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. In claim 8, line 2, it is not clear whether “a second light detector” the same as the one in claim 1. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 16 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 27, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599295
CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597276
DRIVING ASSISTANCE APPARATUS AND DRIVING ASSISTANCE METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12581215
DARK CURRENT PATTERN ESTIMATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574472
Information Processing System And Information Processing Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573195
METHOD FOR EVALUATING PERFORMANCE OF IMAGE SIGNAL PROCESSOR
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+9.6%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1310 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