Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/513,841

ROBOT AIR FILTER

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Nov 20, 2023
Priority
Feb 24, 2022 — provisional 63/313,317 +3 more
Examiner
WANG, CLAIRE X
Art Unit
1774
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Xtend AI Inc.
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
1y 5m
Est. Remaining
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
134 granted / 198 resolved
+2.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
8 currently pending
Career history
206
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§103
41.6%
+1.6% vs TC avg
§102
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
§112
10.6%
-29.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 198 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 2nd, 2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment Amendments filed on March 2nd, 2026 have been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed March 2nd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments to claims 1-5, 7-10, 18-20 and 22 do not overcome the double patent rejection provided previous. A terminal disclaimer was not received. The amendments and arguments were persuasive for the rejections under prior art and the rejections under 35 USC 112 a. 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 1-5, 7-10, 18-20 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,872,512. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variants of one another and the scope of patented US 11,872,512 reads on the claims of the instant application. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 20190120518 A1) teach a movable air conditioner that will track multiple users and change direction of air flow pending on detected temperature of the users. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE X WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm. 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, Yvonne Eyler can be reached at (571) 272-1200. 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. CLAIRE X. WANG Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1774 /CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 1 earlier event
Jun 07, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Nov 12, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
May 19, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Mar 02, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597165
CALIBRATION METHOD AND MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
2y 2m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12469133
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETECTING FUNDUS IMAGE BASED ON DYNAMIC WEIGHTED ATTENTION MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Patent 12432361
FIXED-SIZE IMAGE ALPHA CHANNEL COMPRESSION TECHNIQUES
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 30, 2025
Patent 9400212
Smart Pixel Addressing
7y 1m to grant Granted Jul 26, 2016
Patent 8655047
ELECTRONIC CHECK AND STUB SEPARATION
5y 1m to grant Granted Feb 18, 2014
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+7.7%)
3y 11m (~1y 5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 198 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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