Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/532,713

Seal Device

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 07, 2023
Examiner
PONCIANO, PATRICK BERNAS
Art Unit
3634
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Assa Abloy (Schweiz) AG
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
50 granted / 87 resolved
+5.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
132
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
39.9%
-0.1% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
32.4%
-7.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 87 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 12/22/2025. Claims 1, 3, 10-14, and 16 are currently pending and have been examined below. Claims 2, 4-9, and 15 have been canceled. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 18-19 of claim 1, “on the door frame” should read --on a door frame--. In lines 21-22 of claim 1, “the lug protruding a first end face of the main body” seems that it should read --the lug protruding from a first end face of the main body--. These issues are also present in claim 14. In line 9 of claim 14, “a triggering module” should read --the triggering module--. In line 2 of claim 16, “the housing rail profile” should read --the housing profile rail--. Appropriate correction is required. Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 16 Recitations such as “wherein the main body has an outer diameter which is larger than an outer width of the housing rail profile” on lines 1-2 discloses new matter. Examiner notes that this limitation is not disclosed in the specification, therefore examiner turns to the drawings to rely for guidance on this claim. Examiner notes that none of the figures clearly show that the diameter of the main body 40 is larger than the width of the housing rail profile 1. In the isometric views in at least figures 4, 6, and 13, it is not readily apparent that the diameter of the main body is larger than the width of the housing profile. Furthermore, in the side view of figure 12, the diameter of the main body is not featured such that examiner cannot objectively justify that the outer diameter of the main body is larger than the outer width of the housing rail profile. Lastly, even if there is a figure which can show the width of the housing rail profile and the diameter of the main body, examiner notes that the drawings are not up to scale such that tolerances and inconsistencies will be present as such it will be difficult for the examiner to set forth that the drawings are sufficient to fully support the limitations in claim 16. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 3, and 10-14 are allowed. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art Gan (CN 206707578) (hereinafter “Gan”) appears to teach most of the limitations of the independent claims 1 and 14. However, claim 1 was amended to add features such as the lug and flange. Also, claim 1 was amended to recite: (i) “wherein the flange is arranged on a second end face of the main body, the second end face being opposite to the first end face, a distance between the first end face and second end face being larger than a width of the flange in the longitudinal direction”; (ii) “the mounting sleeve comprising a cylindrical main body with a through-opening, … wherein the coupling party is received in the through-opening of the main body and the coupling part can be guidedly moved within the through-opening relative to the main body with guidance by the main body” Regarding (i), Gan does have a lug, a flange, and a first and second end faces of the main body, but the distance between the first end face and the second end face is not larger than the width of the flange in the longitudinal direction. Note that examiner considered mapping the first and second end faces of the main body such that a distance between the two end faces is larger than the width of the flange, however the claims require the lug to protrude from the first end face and that the first end face is arranged in front of the housing profile rail. Regarding (ii), applicant argued that the mounting sleeve of Gan does not have a cylindrical main body. Examiner notes that the cylindrical main body was interpreted to be positively recited such that the cylindrical shape is required, and examiner agrees with applicant’s findings that Gan does not teach a cylindrical-shaped mounting sleeve. Examiner turns applicant’s attention to cited prior art: Ludwig et al. (EP 3667010) (hereinafter “Ludwig”) and Zhao (CN 120291791). Figure 1 of Ludwig discloses a module similar to the triggering module of applicant’s invention. However, Ludwig does not have a lug protruding on a first end face of the main body. Additionally, Ludwig does not have a cylindrical-shaped mounting sleeve. Zhao discloses a very similar arrangement to applicant’s invention. Similar above, Zhao does not have a lug protruding on a first end face and Zhao also does not meet the priority filing date of applicant’s invention. Examiner also notes that independent claim 14 was amended similarly as claim 1 above, therefore similar reasons for allowance apply for the other independent claim. Lastly, any modifications such as any of the prior art discussed above meet the claim limitations would require hindsight and/or piecemeal rejection such that examiner finds them unreasonable to apply. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments directed to the drawing and claim objections have been considered. Applicant’s amendments directed to rejections under 112(b) have been considered by the examiner. Applicant's arguments filed on 12/22/2025 have been fully considered. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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. /PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634 /DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 07, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 09, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 13, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 09, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Aug 07, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Dec 22, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 28, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600213
QUICKLY ASSEMBLED AND DISASSEMBLED WINDOW FRAME STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584346
DEPLOYABLE DOORWAY BUMPER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584338
STACKING SCREEN DOOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576698
VEHICLE DOOR ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577823
MULTI-PANEL DOOR SYSTEM, AND DUAL-SYNCHRONIZATION DRIVE ASSEMBLY FOR A MULTI-PANEL DOOR SYSTEM
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+14.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 87 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