Office Action Predictor
Application No. 18/464,960

Magnetic Standoff System

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Sep 11, 2023
Examiner
MUSLEH, MOHAMAD A
Art Unit
2837
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

78%
Career Allow Rate
544 granted / 694 resolved
Without
With
+10.4%
Interview Lift
avg trend
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
13 pending
707
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
31.1%
-8.9% vs TC avg
§102
48.2%
+8.2% vs TC avg
§112
15.2%
-24.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “portion. wherein electricity is to flow through the middle portion to power the one or more lights.” Should be changed to -- portion, wherein electricity is to flow through the middle portion to power one or more lights. --. Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-3 and 4-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. US 11754101 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 and 4-7 are being anticipated by claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. US 11754101 B2. 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. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BOTKUS et al. CN 110719998 A [BOTKUS]. Regarding claim 1, BOTKUS teaches a fastener [1] comprising: a first portion [27, FIG. 1A] to be coupled to a wall [the wall of element 5, FIG. 1A]; a second portion [20, FIG. 1A] to be coupled to signage [4, FIG. 1A]; and a middle connector [between elements 27 and 20, FIG. 1A] to be coupled to the first portion and magnetically coupled to the second portion [the middle connector includes magnetic elements 24 and 31, the translation teaches that locking module 2 has a magnet element 24, the magnet element is received in the receiving opening of the adjusting element 23 234 co-acting magnetic element 31 magnetically attract and the magnet element in the locking module 2]. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See (PTO-892). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD A MUSLEH whose telephone number is ((571)272-9086. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shawki S. Ismail can be reached on 571 272 3985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Mohamad A Musleh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 11, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

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

Patent 12597813
ELECTRIC MOTOR WITH COOLANT FLOW AT STATOR SLOTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597544
MAGNETIC COUPLING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586703
BIOMAGNETIC SEPARATION SYSTEM WITH DOUBLE RING PROFILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580112
DEVICE WITH DIAMETERAL MAGNETIC ARRAYS FOR INSTALLATION IN MAGNETIC SUBS FOR THE REMEDIATION AND MITIGATION OF SCALE IN PRODUCTION COLUMNS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573531
CORE PIECE, REACTOR, CONVERTER, AND POWER CONVERSION APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
78%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+10.4%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 694 resolved cases by this examiner