Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/484,060

FIBER DISTRIBUTION DEVICE AND SYSTEM THEREWITH AND METHOD THEREFOR

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 10, 2023
Examiner
WALCZAK, DAVID J
Art Unit
3754
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Roess Nature Group GmbH & Co. Kg
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
1284 granted / 1734 resolved
+4.0% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
1760
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
34.8%
-5.2% vs TC avg
§102
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
§112
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1734 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 . Abstract The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: The abstract should be limited to 150 words or less. 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). Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0023, on line 4, it appears “80° to 90°” should be “80° to 100°” (see claim 4). The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The term “fixed part” (see claim 1, line 11) does not have an antecedent basis in the specification. It appears in claim 1, line 11, “fixed part” should be “stationary part” (see, for example, paragraph 0020, line 1). It is noted claims 2 and 8 both refer to “the stationary part” (see the first line of both claims 2 and 8) and currently there is no antecedent basis for “the stationary part”. See the rejection of claims 2 and 8 under 35 USC 112 below. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 2-5 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: In regard to claims 2-5, it is unclear as to what structure the term “namely” is intended to define (see the first line of claims 2-5). In regard to claim 18, it is unclear as to which element the term “its” (see line 4) is referring. 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 1-19 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 terms for which no antecedent basis has been defined. For example: In regard to claim 1, an antecedent basis for “the upper side” (see lines 3-4 and 6-7) and “the underside” (see lines 4 and 6) has not been defined. In regard to claim 2, an antecedent basis for “the stationary part” (see line 1) and “the region” (see lines 3 and 5) has not been defined. In regard to claims 3, 4 and 5, an antecedent basis for “the second tube portion segment” (see line 2), “the first end” (see line 2) and “the second end” (see lines 2-3) has not been defined. In regard to claims 6 and 7, an antecedent basis for “the second end” (see line 3) has not been defined. In regard to claim 8, an antecedent basis for “the stationary part” (see line 1) has not been defined. In regard to claim 9, an antecedent basis for “the underside” (see line 2) has not been defined. In regard to claim 10, an antecedent basis for “the first end” (see line 2), “the second tube portion segment” (see line 2) and “the rotation angle range” (see line 3) has not been defined. In regard to claim 11, an antecedent basis for “the rotation angle range” (see line 1) has not been defined. In regard to claim 13, an antecedent basis for “the speed” (see line 2) and “the rotational movement” (see line 2) has not been defined. In regard to claim 17, an antecedent basis for “the fan” (see line 2) has not been defined. In regard to claim 18, an antecedent basis for “the region” (see lines 2-3), “the majority” (see line 3) and “the width” (see lines 3-4) has not been defined. The Applicant should review all the claims to ensure each element defined therein has a proper antecedent basis. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-19 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, as well as any objections set forth in this Office action. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Apman et al and Schafer et al. references are cited as being directed to the state of the art as teachings of fiber distribution devices for forming mats out of the fibers and the Konig reference is cited as being directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a tube feeder device for feed fibers to an apparatus which forms a web. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00. 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 Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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. DJW 11/17/25 /DAVID J WALCZAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 10, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599220
Toothpaste And Toothbrush Holder Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601627
METERING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593907
STICK-TYPE PRODUCT WITH HEATING FUNCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590677
METHOD FOR ACTUATING A TANK DEVICE, AND TANK DEVICE FOR STORING A GASEOUS MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582223
Applicator for Applying Flowable Materials
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
74%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+17.7%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1734 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