Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/433,396

Sunshield with UV absorbers, solar powered components, and misting technologies

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Feb 05, 2024
Examiner
CANFIELD, ROBERT
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Jones Martina A Mrs
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
860 granted / 1133 resolved
+23.9% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1164
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
37.0%
-3.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1133 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status This is a first office action on the merits for application serail number 18/433,396 filed 2/05/24. Claims 20-43 are pending and claims 1-19 have been canceled by the preliminary amendment filed 12/24/24. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The substitute specification filed 6/20/24 has NOT been entered as it was not accompanied by the required marked-up copy. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the originally filed specification fails to include a brief description of the drawings nor any of the reference numbers of the figures. The use of the terms Wi-Fi®, Alexa® and Bluetooth®, which are trade names or a marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Appropriate correction is required. A substitute specification excluding the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because the substitute specification filed 6/20/24 nor any of the specification amendments filed subsequent the original filing have NOT been entered. The substitute specification must include a clean copy, a marked-up copy vis-à-vis the originally filed specification (2/05/24) and a no new matter statement. The new specification shall include a brief description of the figures as filed 6/20/20. The detailed description should not be included in the brief description but rather be provided in the detailed description of the invention. A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record which is the originally filed specification as no others have been entered. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown. The replacement drawings filed 6/20/24 has been approved for entry are objected to for the reasons below. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include none of reference character are provide in the originally filed specification Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 21 and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims have added Alexa® which finds no support in the originally filed specification or claims. 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 20-43 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 20, “the surface” lacks antecedent basis. Regarding claim 20, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 21-40 depend from canceled claim 1 rendering the metes and bounds of the claims unascertainable. It appears applicant intended the claims to depend from claim 20? In claim 25, “the ground frame” lacks antecedent basis. The element has been introduced as “a ground frame portion”. Consistent language must be used throughout the claims. In claim 30. “the supporting frame” lacks antecedent basis. The term “lightweight” in claim 30 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lightweight” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear where lightweight begins and ends. Claims 21 and 41 contain the trademarks/trade names Wi-Fi®, Alexa® and Bluetooth®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade names are used to identify/describe a brand name that is used to certify products that meet IEEE 802.11 wireless networking standards owned by Wi-Fi Alliance, a virtual assistant owned by Amazon® and a wireless technology that allows devices to exchange data over short distances using short-wavelength UHF radio waves which is a registered trademark owned by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG). The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/05/24 is mostly in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. No copies were provided of the NPL citations and they were not cited properly. See MPEP 707.05 ( e ) .iv. They have been lined through and not considered. Claims 20-43 appear to 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while many of the claimed features are taught in the prior art the claimed combination of elements is not adequately taught or adequately suggested in the prior art of record. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays. 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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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. ROBERT CANFIELD Primary Examiner Art Unit 3636 /Robert Canfield/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 05, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 27, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595676
HINGE-TYPE CONNECTOR FOR CONNECTING ONE-TOUCH FOLDING TENT FRAME MEMBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593901
FOLDABLE CRUTCH STOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588765
ROCKING FURNITURE MEMBER WITH POWER SYNCHRONOUS MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584316
CANTILEVER UMBRELLA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575680
CONVERTIBLE PLATFORM FOR SUPPORTING A USER
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
76%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+18.0%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1133 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