Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/464,206

Aero Rooter

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Sep 09, 2023
Examiner
HAYES, KRISTEN C
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
857 granted / 1250 resolved
+16.6% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
1299
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§102
34.3%
-5.7% vs TC avg
§112
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1250 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 . Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claims 7, 11, 27-35, and 37 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only and cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 7, 11, 27-35, and 37 not been further treated on the merits. 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 1-37 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. The claims are replete with errors that render their intentions indiscernible. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. Line 2 of claims 2 and 15 recite the limitation of “at least one perforated air cushion”. It is unclear if this is the same air cushion of claim 1 or an additional air cushion. It is unclear it the upper and lower perforated cushions of claim 3 are part of the perforated cushion of claim 1 or additional cushions Claims containing insufficient antecedent basis for claim limitations are listed below: Claim 2: the plant roots Claim 3: the plurality of fertilizer chemical compounds Claim 4: the surfaces Claim 6: the plurality of fertilizer chemical compounds; the nutrient brick Claim 8: the mid area; the plant pot; the capillary action Claim 9: the top surface and the bottom surface; the plurality of apertures; the hollow inside; the root penetration Claim 10: the substrate Claim 12: the upper perforated air cushion; the air channels Claim 13: the lower perforated air cushion; the bottom of the plant pot Claim 14: the plurality of apertures Claim 15: the plurality of apertures; the protrusions for the root penetration; the plant roots Claim 16: the upper perforated air cushion; the lower perforated air cushion; the top perforated layer; the extended wing; the extended empty space under the wing; the air channels Claim 17: the plurality of air channels Claim 18: the plurality of different fertilizer supplements Claim 19: the upper perforated air cushion; the lower perforated air cushion; the improved absorption efficacy Claim 20: the lower perforated air cushion; the bottom of a plant pot; the substrate; the substrate; the pot height; the upper perforated air cushion; the water reservoir at the plant pot bottom; the plant pot Claim 21: the substrate ventilation Claim 22: the plurality of apertures; the control-release chemical compound Claim 23: the nutrient brick/platelet Claim 24: the control-release barrier film Claim 25: the nutrient brick/ the nutrient platelet Claim 26: the substrate Claim 36: the plant roots The term “an appropriate control-release mechanism” occurs repeatedly within the claims. This term renders the claim indefinite, as a way to determine an appropriate mechanism has not been defined by the disclosure of the invention. The term “any appropriate means” occurs repeatedly within the claims. This term renders the claim indefinite, as a means has not been defined by the disclosure of the invention. The term “any convenient shape” occurs repeatedly within the claims. This term renders the claim indefinite, a way to determine what is convenient has not been defined by the disclosure of the invention. The term “taller” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “taller” 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. Claim 24 contains the limitation “with/(or alternatively without)”. It is unclear if the limitations following this phrase are intended to be included as part of the device. It is unclear if “a group of multi-nutrient bricks” of claim 21 additional nutrient bricks or if additional bricks are being claimed. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 5, 10, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Allard US 2021/0368694. Regarding claim 1, Allard discloses an air cushion capable of performing the functional limitations of the claim (Allard, abstract). Regarding claim 5, Allard discloses a fertilizer conveyance device comprising a surface and capable of performing the functional limitations of the claim (Allard, abstract). Regarding claim 10, Allard discloses a plant root air pruning device comprising at least an air channel characterized by a plurality of apertures (in that the device of Allard is permeable) and capable of performing the functional limitations of the claim. Regarding claim 36, Allard discloses a plant root air pruning device comprising a perforated air cushion (Allard, abstract) capable of performing the functional limitations of the claim. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN C HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-7881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm. 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, Michener Joshua can be reached on 571.272.1467. 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. /KRISTEN C HAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 09, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 21, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Feb 10, 2025
Interview Requested
Feb 17, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 22, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 11, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 22, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 03, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599802
TRAINING MECHANISM AND ROBOT FOR WATER-BASED LOWER-LIMB REHABILITATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599114
Cover for a Retractable Dog Leash
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588603
INTERENGAGEABLE CONTAINERS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582850
CABLE SLEEVE FOR FALL PROTECTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582058
PRODUCTION FACILITY LAYOUTS FOR AUTOMATED CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT AGRICULTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
69%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+21.6%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1250 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