Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/501,641

APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Nov 03, 2023
Examiner
HOPKINS, ROBERT A
Art Unit
1776
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ionx Networks Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1336 granted / 1577 resolved
+19.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1611
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
§102
33.7%
-6.3% vs TC avg
§112
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1577 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 . 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 5,8,9,10,12,16-19 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. Claim 5 recites “and optionally the body is substantially semi-circular”. Regarding claim 5, the term “optionally” 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). Claim 8 recites “wherein lengths of the tines increase towards a central region of the body”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “lengths of the tines” in previous claim limitations. Examiner notes claim 1 recites tines, however claim 1 does not recite lengths of tines. Claim 9 recites “the centre of the body”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the centre of the body” in previous claim limitations. Claim 10 recites “the centre of the body”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the centre of the body” in previous claim limitations. Claim 12 recites “and optionally wherein the angle of the tines with respect to the body increases toward a central region of the body”. Regarding claim 12, the term “optionally” 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). Claim 16 recites “and optionally wherein, in use, the first body and second body substantially surround the second object”. Regarding claim 16, the term “optionally” 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). Claim 17 recites “and optionally wherein a thickness of the tines and the body in a direction perpendicular to elongate axes of the plurality of tines is the same.”. Regarding claim 17, the term “optionally” 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). Claim 18 recites “and wherein optionally the post has a circular, oval, square, rectangular, hexagonal, or octagonal cross-section”. Regarding claim 18, the term “optionally” 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). Claim 19 recites “optionally wherein the first object is a wireless communication module , and optionally wherein the first object is a 4G or 5G communication module”. Regarding claim 19, the term “optionally” 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). 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. Claims 1-4,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Malaysian reference(MY-182128-A). Malaysian reference in figures 1-2 teaches an apparatus for obstructing the passage of debris and providing ventilation through a region(noting air passages 20 in figures 1 and 2, air passages extending between an air inlet 51 and air outlet 52) between a first object(shell 5 in figure 1) and a second object(friction body 3 in figure 2) comprising a body(dust collection body 2), and a plurality of tines(projections 21 in figure 2) extending from the body, wherein the tines are arranged in use such that when the body is connected to the first object, the tines extend across the region and flex(page 9 stating “the projections are flexible”) against the second object(figure 2 noting projections flexible against friction body 3) leaving channels between the tines in the region allowing for ventilation. Examiner notes that the limitations “in use” represents a method limitation for a particular period of time during operation of the claimed apparatus, and therefore the stated limitations are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis. With regards to claim 2, Malaysian reference further teaches wherein, in use, flexing of the tines is substantially constrained to a plane. Examiner notes that the limitations “in use” represents a method limitation for a particular period of time during operation of the claimed apparatus, and therefore the stated limitations are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis. With regards to claim 3, Malaysian reference further teaches wherein elongate axes of the plurality of tines define the plane. With regards to claim 4, Malaysian reference further teaches wherein, in use, each tine of the plurality of tines flexes in a predetermined direction. Examiner notes that the limitations “in use” represents a method limitation for a particular period of time during operation of the claimed apparatus, and therefore the stated limitations are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis. With regards to claim 18, Malaysian reference further teaches wherein the second object is a post. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Malaysian reference(MY-182128-A). Malaysian reference in figures 1-2 teaches a method for obstructing the passage of debris and providing ventilation through a region (noting air passages 20 in figures 1 and 2, air passages extending between an air inlet 51 and air outlet 52) between a first object(shell 5 in figure 1) and a second object(friction body 3 in figure 2) , comprising connecting one or more apparatuses to the first object, wherein each of the one of more apparatuses comprises a body (dust collection body 2) and a plurality of tines(projections 21 in figure 2) extending from the body; and attaching the first object to the second object to define the region, such that the tines of the one or more apparatuses extend across the region and flex(page 9 stating “the projections are flexible”) against the second object(figure 2 noting projections flexible against friction body 3) leaving channels between tines in the region allowing for ventilation. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-13, 15-17, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 5 recites “wherein the body is arcuate and the tines extend inwardly from the inner circumference of the body, and optionally the body is substantially semi-circular.”. Malaysian reference teaches a body with tines, however Malaysian reference does not teach or suggest wherein the body is arcuate and the tines extend inwardly from the inner circumference of the body. Claim 6 recites “wherein the tines are angled acutely with respect to the body.”. Malaysian reference teaches a body with tines, however Malaysian reference does not teach or suggest wherein the tines are angled acutely with respect to the body. Claim 7 recites “wherein the plurality of tines comprises tines of different lengths”. Malaysian reference teaches a body with tines, however Malaysian reference does not teach or suggest wherein the plurality of tines comprises tines of different lengths. Claim 8 recites “wherein lengths of the tines increase towards a central region of the body.”. Malaysian reference teaches a body with tines, however Malaysian reference does not teach or suggest wherein lengths of the tines increase towards a central region of the body. Claim 9 recites “wherein one or more tines extending from a region of the body distal from the centre of the body have a length shorter than tines extending from a non-distal region”. Malaysian reference teaches a body with tines, however Malaysian reference does not teach or suggest wherein one or more tines extending from a region of the body distal from the centre of the body have a length shorter than tines extending from a non-distal region. Claim 10 recites “wherein one or more tines extending from a region of the body distal from the centre of the body have a length longer than tines extending from a non-distal region”. Malaysian reference teaches a body with tines, however Malaysian reference does not teach or suggest wherein one or more tines extending from a region of the body distal from the centre of the body have a length longer than tines extending from a non-distal region. Claim 11 recites “wherein one or more tines of the plurality of tines comprise portions angled differently with respect to the body from which the one or more tines extend.”. Malaysian reference teaches a body with tines, however Malaysian reference does not teach or suggest wherein one or more tines of the plurality of tines comprise portions angled differently with respect to the body from which the one or more tines extend. Claim 12 recites “wherein the tines comprises tines angled differently with respect to the body and optionally wherein the angle of the tines with respect to the body increases towards a central region of the body.”. Malaysian reference teaches a body with tines, however Malaysian reference does not teach or suggest wherein the tines comprises tines angled differently with respect to the body. Claim 13 recites “wherein the plurality of tines is arranged into at least a first tine group and a second tine group, each tine group comprising a plurality of tines, the tine groups being separated by a region comprising tines of a length shorter than the minimum tine length of tines in the first or second tine groups”. Malaysian reference teaches a body with tines, however Malaysian reference does not teach or suggest wherein the plurality of tines is arranged into at least a first tine group and a second tine group, each tine group comprising a plurality of tines, the tine groups being separated by a region comprising tines of a length shorter than the minimum tine length of tines in the first or second tine groups. Claim 14 depends on claim 13 and hence would also be allowable upon incorporation of claim 13 into claim 1. Claim 15 recites “wherein the plurality of tines is arranged into at least a first tine group and a second tine group, each tine group comprising a plurality of tines, the tine groups being separated by a region comprising tines of a length shorter than the minimum tine length of tines in the first or second tine groups.”. Malaysian reference teaches a body with tines, however Malaysian reference does not teach or suggest wherein the plurality of tines is arranged into at least a first tine group and a second tine group, each tine group comprising a plurality of tines, the tine groups being separated by a region comprising tines of a length shorter than the minimum tine length of tines in the first or second tine groups. Claim 16 recites “wherein the body comprises a first body and a second body, each body having a plurality of tines, and optionally wherein , in use, the first body and second body substantially surround the second object.”. Malaysian reference teaches a body with tines, however Malaysian reference does not teach or suggest wherein the body comprises a first body and a second body, each body having a plurality of tines. Claim 17 recites “wherein a ration of tine length to spacing between adjacent tines is in the range 2.5 to 20 and optionally wherein a thickness of the tines and the body in a direction perpendicular to elongate axes of the plurality of tines is the same.”. Malaysian reference teaches a body with tines, however Malaysian reference does not teach or suggest wherein a ration of tine length to spacing between adjacent tines is in the range 2.5 to 20. Claim 19 recites “wherein the first object comprises electronic circuitry, and optionally wherein the first object is a wireless communication module, and optionally the first object is a 4G or 5G communication module.”. Malaysian reference teaches a first object , however Malaysian reference does not teach or suggest wherein the first object comprises electronic circuitry. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm. 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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 A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776 January 5, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 03, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582946
ERGONOMIC DEVICE FOR MIXING FLUIDS WITH CONTROLLED METERING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582931
DRYING OF FILTER ELEMENTS IN A FILTER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582934
SMART DUST SUPPRESSION SYSTEM THAT SPRAYS ATOMIZED WATER THROUGH A FAN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578106
AIR CLEANER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577927
ADJUSTMENT STRUCTURE AND CARBURETOR
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
85%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+8.1%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1577 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