Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/408,445

ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 09, 2024
Examiner
HYEON, HAE M
Art Unit
2831
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Avertronics Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1015 granted / 1186 resolved
+17.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1215
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
29.8%
-10.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
35.9%
-4.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1186 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 Objections Claims 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2-4, line 1, the examiner suggests the applicant to change “The electrical connector” to -- The blade-type electrical connector”. Appropriate correction is required. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the present abstract line 1 uses a phrase “may include”, which refers to a possibility when the present invention deals with an electrical connector either works according to its design or it does not work. 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). The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: BLADE-TYPE ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR FOR A VEHICLE. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0023], lines 3-6 describe the reference number 21 as “female slots”. However, lines 12-13 describe the reference number 21 as “female terminal slots”. The applicant should use the same terminology with the same reference number consistently throughout the entire specification for clear understanding. The examiner suggests the applicant to use “female terminal slots (21)” since 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 1-4 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 1, the male terminal blades are not mating with a mating female terminal. Although, claim 1, line 22 recites, “a plurality of gate-type female slots”, these are just slots and not electrical terminals. In addition, claim 1, line 30 recites, “the female terminal slots”, these female terminal slots do not have any structural relationship with the male terminal blades. Claim 1, lines 15-16 recite, “a plurality of second through holes”. However, claim 1 does not recite, “a first through hole”. Therefore, it is not clear how the second through holes can exist without at least one first through hole. Claim 1, lines 24-25 recite, “each of the female slots has a third connecting end and a fourth connecting end”. It is not clear how the female slots can have third and fourth connecting ends when the female slots and just a plurality of narrow openings. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the female terminal slots" in line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, line 22 does recite, “female slots”, but a slot is just an opening and not a terminal. If the female slots in line 22 are the same element as the female terminal slots in line 30, lines 22-24 should recite, “female terminal slots”. Claim 1, lines 34-35 recite, “the fourth connecting end located within the wiring area protrudes from the rear end of the second connecting end”. It is not clear how the wiring area can protrude from the rear end of the second connecting end when the second connecting end belongs to the male terminal blades 11 and the fourth connecting end belongs to the female slots. It seems that “the second connecting end” in line 35 should be -- the second connecting head -- because the fourth connecting end 212 extending out of a rear end of the second connecting head 22. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the connected female connecting ends" in line 46. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While claim 1 recites “female slots”, “female terminal slots” and first, second, third and fourth connecting ends, claim 1 does not recite, “female connecting ends”. Therefore, it is not clear what the female connecting ends are. 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAE MOON HYEON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm. 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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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. /hmh/ /Hae Moon Hyeon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 09, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597725
CONNECTOR MODULE WITH IMPROVED HEAT DISSIPATION PERFORMANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597741
ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR ASSEMBLY WITH BETTER ANTI-INTERFERENCE AND GROUNDING EFFECTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580346
Plug-in device, plug-in system with a plug-in device, as well as robot with a plug-in device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575603
AEROSOL DELIVERY DEVICE WITH MULTIPLE AEROSOL DELIVERY PATHWAYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579388
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR AEROSOL DELIVERY COMPRISING A BIODEGRADABLE OUTER BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
86%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+10.2%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1186 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