Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/570,889

A SEALING MODULE FOR CABLES OR PIPES, A TRANSIT SYSTEM COMPRISING SUCH A SEALING MODULE, AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING SUCH A SEALING MODULE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 15, 2023
Examiner
NGO, HUNG V
Art Unit
2841
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Roxtec AB
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
46%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
762 granted / 943 resolved
+12.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -35% lift
Without
With
+-35.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
955
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
52.4%
+12.4% vs TC avg
§102
39.7%
-0.3% vs TC avg
§112
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 943 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 103 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) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millevik (US 2012/0071029) in view of Sizemore (US 2017/0071063). The teaching as discussed above does not disclose wherein the apertures are perforations (re claim 20), wherein the conductor is manufactured by perforating metal using a perforating roller to form the apertures (re claim 21), wherein the perforating roller has a rolling direction, and wherein the rolling direction corresponds to a transverse direction of the conductor when arranged in the sealing module (re claim 22). The limitations of “the conductor is manufactured by perforating metal using a perforating roller to form the apertures” and “wherein the perforating roller has a rolling direction, and wherein the rolling direction corresponds to a transverse direction of the conductor when arranged in the sealing module” have been considered, but does not result in a structural difference. The presence of process limitations in product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to that product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). Sizemore teaches the use of apertures are perforations (punching the apertures) [0122]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the aperture of Millevik by perforating a blank material for forming a rigid structure. Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millevik (US 2012/0071029) in view of Sizemore (US 2017/0071063) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Shimizu (US 2005/0044915). The teaching as discussed above does not disclose wherein the apertures of the conductor are formed by a perforating roller operating in a rolling direction, and the conductor is arranged in the sealing module such that the rolling direction corresponds to a transverse direction of the conductor. Shimizu et al teach the apertures of the conductor are formed by a perforating roller operating in a rolling direction, and the conductor is arranged in the sealing module such that the rolling direction corresponds to a transverse direction of the conductor (Fig 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the perforating roller to form apertures of the conductor of the modified Millevik for simplifying manufacturing process. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-8, 10-12, 15-17 are allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 20 have been considered but are moot. Communication Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG V NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-1979. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 M-F. 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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571) 270-5528. 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. /HUNG V NGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 15, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 24, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 14, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 14, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598728
SELF-ADAPTIVE THIN-FILM ELECTROMAGNETIC SHIELDING SCREEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597535
TWO CORE FLAT CABLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593430
ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE SHIELDING MATERIAL, ELECTRONIC COMPONENT, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588176
RF Shielding Pouch and Garment for Electronic Devices
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588175
NOISE REDUCTION TOOL AND WIRE HARNESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
81%
Grant Probability
46%
With Interview (-35.2%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 943 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