Office Action Predictor
Application No. 18/445,655

Aircraft tent apparatus

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 14, 2023
Examiner
JACKSON, DANIELLE
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

65%
Career Allow Rate
572 granted / 876 resolved
Without
With
+26.6%
Interview Lift
avg trend
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
20 pending
896
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
39.5%
-0.5% vs TC avg
§102
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
§112
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

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 . Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 5, “airplane 10” should be changed to --airplane 14--. Page 5, “second strip or band 34” should be changed to --second strip or band 36--. Page 6, “airplane 10” should be changed to --airplane 14--. Page 7, lines 1-2, “the collapsed, folded tent aboard the airplane 14. as part of its emergency equipment,” should be changed to --the collapsed, folded tent aboard the airplane 14, as part of its emergency equipment.-- (reversing the period and comma). Page 8, “sidewall 20” should be changed to --sidewall 24-- in order to be consistent with what is depicted in FIG. 5. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 1, 4 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 1, “Tent apparatus” should be changed to --A tent apparatus--. Claim 4, lines 3-5, “said first layer of hook or loop material on said support member is engaged with said complementary second layer of hook or loop material on said another end of said top panel” should be changed to either --said first layer of hook or loop material on said another end of said top panel is engaged with said complementary second layer of hook or loop material on said support member-- or --said second layer of hook or loop material on said support member is engaged with said complementary first layer of hook or loop material on said another end of said top panel-- in order to be consistent with the placement of the first and second layers of hook and loop material as recited in claim 2. Claim 10, lines 1-2, “at least some of said conjoined wall panels has an opening” is improper English and should be changed. Claim 10, line 2, “said at least opening” should be changed to --said opening--. 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 1-12 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. Claim 1 recites “when said top panel engages said top surface portion of said wing” in lines 10-11. It is not clear if the top panel ever actually engages said top surface portion of said wing. Previously, it was the enclosure support member that was recited as being “arranged to engage a top surface portion of said wing” (lines 7-8). Additionally, the top panel never appears to be disclosed as engaging the top surface of the wing in the disclosure of the drawings; in fact, it appears it engages the bottom surface of the wing if it even engages the airplane at all (see FIG. 2). For examination purposes, it is assumed that lines 10-11 should read “when said enclosure support member engages said top surface portion of said wing” and will be treated as such. Clarification is required. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wing tip" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fuselage" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the wing airfoil" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the interior surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-12 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Stoddard (US 4,205,695) discloses a tent apparatus capable of being supported below and by the wing (16) of a grounded airplane, comprising: an enclosure of flexible material, said enclosure being characterized by conjoined wall panels (10, 11) terminating in a top panel (21) at one extremity of said conjoined wall panels (as seen in FIG. 3), an enclosure support member (13) affixed to said top panel, said enclosure support member arranged to engage a top surface portion of said wing (FIG. 3), and said enclosure is situated under said wing between the wing tip of said wing and the fuselage of said airplane (as seen in FIG. 1, a majority of the enclosure is located under the wing and between the wing tip and the fuselage). Stoddard lacks reclosure means on said support member for attaching said support member to said top panel when said enclosure support member engages said top surface portion of said wing. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the top wall and the enclosure support member to have reclosure means as the two elements already form a sleeve that can be slipped over a portion of the wing and secured with a drawstring (20) and modifying Stoddard would provide no advantage and make set up of the enclosure more complicated. Bright (US 2017/0159320 A1) discloses a tent apparatus capable of being supported below and by the wing (20) of a grounded airplane, comprising: an enclosure of flexible material, said enclosure being characterized by conjoined wall panels (formed of 5 and 15) terminating in a top panel (portion of 5 that is shown above 20 in FIG. 5) at one extremity of said conjoined wall panels, an enclosure support member (30, 35) affixed to said top panel, and reclosure means (35) on said support member such that said enclosure is situated under said wing between the wing tip of said wing and the fuselage of said airplane (as seen in FIGS. 1-3 and 5, a majority of the enclosure is located under the wing and between the wing tip and the fuselage). Bright lacks said enclosure support member being arranged to engage a top surface portion of said wing and said reclosure means attaching said support member to said top panel when said enclosure support member engages said top surface portion of said wing. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Bright to include the above feature as doing so would not provide an advantage and only make the tent more complicated and costly to manufacture. Conclusion 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 DANIELLE JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2268. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11AM-7PM EST. 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. /DNJ/Examiner, Art Unit 3636 /DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 14, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 01, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12595677
Portable Wind-Resistant Shade Structure
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12553253
ROOFTOP TENT ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12553255
PORTABLE SHELTERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546136
CANOPY ENGAGEMENT DEVICE AND CANOPY WITH THE CANOPY ENGAGEMENT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12546137
Portable Barrier and Associated Method of Use
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate 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 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 876 resolved cases by this examiner