Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/544,156

TORSO AERATOR

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 18, 2023
Examiner
EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT
Art Unit
3673
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
697 granted / 878 resolved
+27.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
905
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
40.9%
+0.9% vs TC avg
§102
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 878 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6, 12 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. Claim 15 is 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 15 depends from canceled claim 14, rendering claim 15 indefinite. For purposes of examination, claim 15 is interpreted as depending from claim 12. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 6-8, 12, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2020/0032815 (Paris ‘815 hereinafter) in view of USPAP 2019/0041057 (Paras hereinafter). With regard to claim 6, Paris ‘815 discloses a torso aerator (100) comprising: a cylinder (200) having two ends and a wall between said ends, said cylinder (200) having a length; two covers (204), each cover (204) fitting into one of said ends, each cover (204) having a plurality of apertures (206); a fan assembly (301) installing in said wall generally centered between said ends, said fan assembly (301) drawing air into said cylinder (200) through said plurality of apertures (206); at least one padding (207) joined to said wall wherein said at least one padding (207) prevents rotation of said cylinder (200) during usage and wherein said at least one padding (207) allows for aiming of said fan assembly (301) during usage; and said fan assembly (301) exhausting air from said aerator, wherein said torso aerator (100) is adapted to dry and to ventilate a surface of a person having a body utilizing said torso aerator (100) proximate the body of the person; each cover (204) being round. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. Paris ‘815 does not disclose each of said plurality of apertures having an edge condition within said cover; and said edge condition being one of parabolic and ogee. Paras discloses air passages (inlets (30) and outlets (32)) within a cover (6, 8, 10, 12) and having an edge condition, wherein said edge condition is an ogee (38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus of Paris ‘815 by providing that said plurality of apertures have an edge condition within said cover and said edge condition being an ogee as taught in Paras for the purposes of reducing injury to an end user (paragraph [0049] of Paras). With regard to claim 7, the Paris ‘815 modification with regard to claim 6 discloses the torso aerator of claim 6 wherein said fan assembly exhausts air away from said wall. With regard to claim 8, the Paris ‘815 modification with regard to claim 6 discloses the torso aerator (100) of claim 1 wherein said fan assembly (301) operates from 0.02 cubic feet per minute to 190 cubic feet per minute. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. With regard to claim 12, the Paris ‘815 modification with regard to claim 6 discloses a torso aerator (100) comprising: a fan assembly (301) exhausting air out of said torso aerator (100), wherein said torso aerator (100) is adapted to dry and to ventilate a surface of a person having a body utilizing said torso aerator (100) proximate the body of the person; said fan assembly (301) installed in a wall, said wall curving into a cylinder (200); said cylinder (200) having two ends and a length, and said wall extending between said ends; two covers (204), each cover (204) fitting into one of said ends, each cover (204) having a plurality of apertures (206); said plurality of apertures (206) admitting air into said cylinder (200) drawn by said fan assembly (301); at least one padding (207) joined to said wall wherein said at least one padding (207) prevents rotation of said cylinder (200) during usage and wherein said at least one padding (207) allows for aiming of said fan assembly (301) during usage; said covers (204) being mutually parallel and spaced apart; said fan assembly (301) having a centered position between said ends; each cover (204) being round; each of said plurality of apertures (206) having an edge condition within said cover (204); said edge condition being an ogee; and said fan assembly (301) exhausting air out of said wall. With regard to claim 15, insofar as claim 15 is definite, the Paris ‘815 modification with regard to claim 6 discloses the torso aerator (100) of claim 14, further comprising: said fan assembly (301) including an impeller (302), a motor (303) operatively engaging said impeller (302), an actuator (307) operatively engaging said motor (303), and a housing containing said impeller (302) and said motor (303); two of said paddings (207); said fan assembly (301) positioned upon said wall spaced away from one of said paddings (207) and said one of said paddings (207) is adapted to prevent said fan assembly (301) rotating said cylinder (200); and the other of said paddings (207) spacing away from the one of said paddings (207). With regard to claim 19, the Paris ‘815 modification with regard to claim 6 discloses a torso aerator (100) comprising: a cylinder (200) having two round ends and a wall between said ends, said cylinder (200) having a length; two round covers (204), each cover (204) fitting into one of said ends, each cover (204) having a plurality of apertures (206); a fan assembly (301) installing in said wall generally centered between said ends, said fan assembly (301) drawing air into said cylinder (200) through said plurality of apertures (206); two paddings (207) joined to said wall wherein said paddings (207) prevents rotation of said cylinder (200) during usage and wherein said paddings (207) allow for aiming of said fan assembly (301) during usage; said fan assembly (301) exhausting air out of said aerator, wherein said torso aerator (100) is adapted to dry and to ventilate a surface of a person having a body utilizing said torso aerator (100) proximate the body of the person; said fan assembly (301) positioned upon said wall near one of said paddings (207) wherein said fan assembly (301) is adapted to exhaust air out of said wall to a desired location and is adapted to prevent said fan assembly (301) rotating said cylinder (200); wherein the other of said paddings (207) is positioned upon said wall and spaced away from the one of said paddings (207); each of said plurality of apertures (206) having an edge condition within said cover (204); and said edge condition being an ogee. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2007/140432 discloses air passages with an ogee shape. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R EASTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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. /AARON R EASTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 18, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 14, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 17, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jul 03, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 11, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595767
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENGINE WEAR REDUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584423
TURBINE AND TURBOCHARGER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577881
TURBINE SHROUD ASSEMBLIES WITH ANTI-MIGRATION SEALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571410
BRACE FOR CEILING DROP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571329
ALTERING STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF TWO-PIECE HOLLOW-VANE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+18.5%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 878 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