Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/402,082

ILLUMINATED WIND DETECTION DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 02, 2024
Examiner
COURSON, TANIA C
Art Unit
2855
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
588 granted / 904 resolved
-3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
941
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
42.0%
+2.0% vs TC avg
§102
34.7%
-5.3% vs TC avg
§112
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 904 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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 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. DETAILED ACTION Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: "304" in ¶ [0031]. 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. 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. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following: there is an additional sentence/line following the Abstract paragraph. The last sentence/line "Illuminated Wind Detection Device" should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the 6th line currently reads in part “the spray cap is further comprised of a light is configured to”. The claim appears to be missing a ‘that’ between ‘light’ and ‘is’ or the ‘is’ should be removed. Appropriate correction is required. Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: there are improperly capitalized words in the claims. Claim(s) 2, line 3, should read “ [W]wherein the power source”; Claim(s) 11, line 6, should read “ [T]the spray cap”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 8. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woolsey (US 7765863 B1; see reference in its entirety) in view of Norris et al. (US 11592458 B2; see reference in its entirety). With respect to independent Claim 1, Woolsey disclose(s): An illuminated wind detection device (Figs. 4 & 13), the device comprising: a container (Fig. 4: 15) configured to hold a powder material therein (Fig. 4 and col. 7, lines 7-9); a spray cap (Fig. 4: 21) configured to secure to the container (Fig. 4); wherein the spray cap is configured to disperse a cloud of the powder material from the container into the air (Fig. 4 and col. 7, lines 21-22: 10). Woolsey does not specifically disclose: cap is comprised of a light is configured to illuminate the material. However, Norris teach(es) a device (Fig. 2) comprising: cap is comprised of a light (Fig. 2: 14) is configured to illuminate the material (Fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 3-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Woolsey, with the teachings of Norris, for the purpose of increasing visibility of the material and the device at night (col. 3, lines 3-5). With respect to Claim 2, Woolsey and Norris teach(es) the device of Claim 1. The combination does not specifically disclose: further comprising a power source located within the cap; Wherein the power source is operably coupled to the light. However, Norris further teach(es): further comprising a power source located within the cap (Fig. 2: 28); Wherein the power source is operably coupled to the light (Fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 21-23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Woolsey and Norris, with the further teachings of Norris, for the purpose of allowing user activation accessibility (col. 2, lines 54-57). With respect to Claim 3, Woolsey and Norris teach(es) the device of Claim 1. The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the cap is further comprised of a spray plunger. However, Norris further teach(es): wherein the cap is further comprised of a spray plunger (Fig. 2: 11). Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 2. With respect to Claim 4, Woolsey and Norris teach(es) the device of Claim 3. The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the light is configured to illuminate when the spray plunger is depressed. However, Norris further teach(es): wherein the light is configured to illuminate when the spray plunger is depressed (col. 2, lines 54-61). Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 2. With respect to Claim 5, Woolsey and Norris teach(es) the device of Claim 4. The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the cap is further comprised of at least one electrical contact; wherein the electrical contact is configured to activate the light when the spray plunger is depressed. However, Norris further teach(es wherein the cap is further comprised of at least one electrical contact (Fig. 2: 33-34); wherein the electrical contact is configured to activate the light when the spray plunger is depressed (col. 2, lines 21-23 and 54-61). Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 2. With respect to Claim 6, Woolsey and Norris teach(es) the device of Claim 1. Woolsey further disclose(s): further comprising a spray device (Fig. 4: 22) operably coupled to the spray cap (Fig. 4). With respect to Claim 7, Woolsey and Norris teach(es) the device of Claim 6. Woolsey further disclose(s): wherein the spray device is configured to release a measured amount of powder material into the air (Fig. 4 and col. 7, lines 56-59). Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woolsey and Norris further in view of Morris (US 2010/0224119 A1; see reference in its entirety). Regarding Claim(s) 8, Woolsey and Norris disclose(s) the device of Claim 1. The combination does not specifically disclose: a loop connector secured to the cap. However, Morris teach(es) a device (Fig. 18) including: a loop connector (Fig. 18: 184) secured to the cap (Fig. 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Woolsey and Norris, with the further teachings of Morris, for the purpose of improving security of the device to another element (¶ [0061]). Regarding Claim(s) 9, Woolsey and Norris disclose(s) the device of Claim 1. The combination does not specifically disclose: a loop connector secured to the cap. However, Morris teach(es) a device (Fig. 18) including: a loop connector (Fig. 18: 184) secured to the cap (Fig. 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Woolsey and Norris, with the further teachings of Morris, for the purpose of improving security of the device to another element (¶ [0061]). Regarding Claim(s) 10, Woolsey and Norris disclose(s) the device of Claim 1. The combination does not specifically disclose: a D-ring secured to the cap. However, Morris teach(es) a device (Fig. 18) including: a D-ring (Fig. 18: 184) secured to the cap (Fig. 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Woolsey and Norris, with the further teachings of Morris, for the purpose of improving security of the device to another element (¶ [0061]). Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woolsey in view of Norris and Morris. With respect to independent Claim 11, Woolsey disclose(s): An illuminated wind detection device (Figs. 4 & 13), the device consisting of: a container (Fig. 4: 15) configured to hold a powder material therein (Fig. 4 and col. 7, lines 7-9); a spray cap (Fig. 4: 21) configured to secure to the container (Fig. 4); wherein the spray cap is configured to disperse a cloud of the powder material from the container into the air (Fig. 4 and col. 7, lines 21-22: 10). Woolsey does not specifically disclose: cap is comprised of a light is configured to illuminate the material. However, Norris teach(es) a device (Fig. 2) comprising: cap is comprised of a light (Fig. 2: 14) is configured to illuminate the material (Fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 3-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Woolsey, with the teachings of Norris, for the purpose of increasing visibility of the material and the device at night (col. 3, lines 3-5). The combination do(es) not specifically disclose: a D-ring connector is secured to the device. However, Morris teach(es): a device (Fig. 18) including: a D-ring connector is secured to the device (Fig. 18: 184). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Woolsey and Norris, with the teachings of Morris, for the purpose of improving security of the device to another element (¶ [0061]). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The following reference(s) relate to powder spraying devices: Gustafsson et al. (US 2501047). The following reference(s) relate to wind detection devices: : Shockley (US 5555664); Wynalda, Jr. (US 9426977 B1); Conley et al. (US 8897628 B2); Pahrmann (US 10514388 B2); Herschede (US 4423626); Schmidt (US 8206697 B1); Wynalda, Jr. (US 9585981 B2); Hoyes et al. (US 6550689 B1); Charles (US 11419327 B2). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm). 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, Kristina Deherrera, can be reached on (303) 297-4237. 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. /TC/ 24 January 2026 /KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 02, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600491
PUSH BUTTON MOTION INDICATOR MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594479
Pool Lap Counter
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586489
Rail Mount Flagpole
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571697
SEALING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571782
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRACKING OF CHEMICAL EXPOSURES
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
65%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+26.6%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 904 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