Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/512,641

FOLDING CANOPY

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 17, 2023
Examiner
CANFIELD, ROBERT
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
860 granted / 1133 resolved
+23.9% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1164
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
37.0%
-3.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1133 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status This is a first office action on the merits for application serail number 18/512,641 filed 11/17/23. Claims 1-7 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. The information disclosure statement filed 11/17/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The information disclosure statement filed 11/17/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The drawings are objected to because figure 8 should bracketed “}”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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: it is not clear what the “4 support rods” of claim 1 are. Is applicant reference to elements 100 defined as “stakes” in the specification? The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification and claims use the term “stakes” for elements 100. While applicant may be his or her own lexicographer they may not use terms contrary to their ordinary understood meanings. Elements 100 are not stakes as would be recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art as be definite a stake has a pint end to be driven into the ground. Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more stake1 /stāk/ noun 1. a strong wooden or metal post with a point at one end, driven into the ground to support a tree, form part of a fence, act as a boundary mark, etc. Similar: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize elements 100 as legs. See cited patents. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-7 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. At least claim 1 and claim 7 are more than one sentence long rendering the meets and bounds of the claims indefinite. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. In claim 1, “4” should be spelled as “four”. The claims are replete with terms which lack antecedent basis rendering the claims indefinite. Non-limiting examples include: At line 2 of claim 1, “triangles’ lack antecedent basis. The claim introduced four triangular structures”. Consistent language must be used throughout. “the end portions”; “the two sides of each triangular structures” (as best understood a triangular structure has three sides so it is not clear which sides “the two” are); “the other end” (claim 1, line 6); “the fixed seat” (at least claim 1, lines 7, 10-11); “the support rod’s sliding seat” claim 1, lines 7-8; “the sliding seat” claim 1, line 12. “the fixed seat”, “the sliding seat” and “the triangle” (throughout the claims); “the self-locking latch”, The hooked end”, “the torsion spring force” and “the hooked end [cl. 3]. “the stake” [cls.6-7]; Where applicant has introduces more than one of an element it is not clear which element is refenced when referred back to as “the”. For example, which support rod is “the support rod” claim 1, lines 7-8 as line 1 introduces four support rods. In claim 1, the language “interconnecting linkages at two midpoints’ is unclear. The terms “long, short, small and large” in claims 1 and 7 are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claims, 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. It is not clear where “long, short, small and large” begin and end. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting all antecedent basis errors of which applicant may become aware of. In claim1, the passage “ The linkages on each side of the quadrilateral are respectively hinged together at the end portions through upper and lower bridging components, while the end portions of the linkages on the two sides of each triangular structure are hinged to the corresponding upper and lower bridging components, with the other end corresponding to being hinged on the fixed seat at the top of the support rod and sliding sleeve on the support rod's sliding seat” is not understood. 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 ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays. 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. ROBERT CANFIELD Primary Examiner Art Unit 3636 /Robert Canfield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 17, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 08, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595676
HINGE-TYPE CONNECTOR FOR CONNECTING ONE-TOUCH FOLDING TENT FRAME MEMBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593901
FOLDABLE CRUTCH STOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588765
ROCKING FURNITURE MEMBER WITH POWER SYNCHRONOUS MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584316
CANTILEVER UMBRELLA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575680
CONVERTIBLE PLATFORM FOR SUPPORTING A USER
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
76%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+18.0%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1133 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