Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 06, 2026
Application No. 18/367,819

WATERPROOF CONTAINER HAVING A WATERPROOF ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Sep 13, 2023
Priority
Apr 22, 2020 — provisional 63/014,014 +4 more
Examiner
VASUDEVA, AJAY
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kai Concepts LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allowance Rate
559 granted / 792 resolved
+18.6% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
817
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
35.5%
-4.5% vs TC avg
§102
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§112
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 792 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . 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 41-49 and 51-53 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 41 (line 10), the limitation “a lower portion to which a hydrofoil and propulsion system” (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite. It is not sufficiently clear if such propulsion system is same or different from the propulsion system set forth earlier on line 4 of the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 41-44, 47 and 51-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scivally (US 3,052,204 A). Scivally shows a strut assembly that is capable of being connected to a board of a watercraft, the strut assembly comprising: a strut [4] with upper and lower portions, and a propulsion system [1] mountable to the lower portion of the strut. Conductors extend from the first connector portion to the lower portion of the strut to electrically connect the first connector portion and the propulsion system. It is noted that the claim does not positively recite a board. In the present case, the upper portion of the strut is capable of being mounted (therefore, mountable) to a board of a watercraft. A first connector portion [10] on the upper portion of the strut is pivotable relative to the strut, and is therefore considered to be pivotally attached to the upper portion of the strut. Further, the claim does not positively recite a second connector. In the present case, the first connector portion is considered capable of being connected, and therefore is connectable, to a second connector portion on the watercraft, as required on line 8 of claim 41. The claim also fails to positively recite a hydrofoil. In the present case, the lower portion of the strut is capable of mounting a hydrofoil. Re claim 42, as noted above, the claim does not positively recite the second connector or a container. In the present case, the first connector portion is considered capable of being connected, and therefore is connectable, to the second connector portion mounted to a container of the watercraft housing a battery of the watercraft. Re claim 43, the conductors extend within the strut from the upper portion to the lower portion. Re claim 44, the term “plug” has been broadly interpreted to mean a protrusion. In the present case, although protrusion [31 or 33] atop the first connector portion is not an “electrical” plug, it is broadly considered to be a plug that is capable of being inserted (therefore, insertable) into a socket of the second connector portion (note: the claim does not positively recite the second connector portion). Re claim 47, further to the explanation provided above for claim 44, the plug [31] atop the first connector portion has a tapered end portion that is capable of guiding the plug into a socket of a second connector portion. Re clam 51, the strut includes an attachment flange at the upper portion of the strut, the first connector portion protruding above the attachment flange (see Fig 1 for the flange of wire 24 that attaches to the brush terminal 25). Re claim 52, the member [40] acts as a stops to limit pivotal movement of the first connector portion (see Fig 2). Re claim 53, the upper portion of the strut includes attachment pins [31 or 33] that can facilitate connection of the first connector portion to a second connector portion. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 30-36 and 38-40 are allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY VASUDEVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6689. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 am - 3:00 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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. /AJAY VASUDEVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 13, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112
May 19, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 24, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12691863
Wing-In-Ground Effect Vehicle
3y 11m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12691974
HYDROFOILING BOARD
3y 6m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12685349
POP UP VEST
2y 4m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12662217
COUPLER FOR ATTACHING AN ACCESSORY TO A BOAT RAIL
4y 0m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12643655
Airborne Vehicle With Multi-Airfoil Tail
3y 11m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+22.8%)
2y 6m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 792 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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