Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/571,697

MODULAR STACKED CONTROL LOOP APPLICATION SYSTEM, METHOD OF COMPOSING A CONTROL LOOP APPLICATION SYSTEM AND USE OF A COMPOSED CONTROL LOOP APPLICATION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 18, 2023
Examiner
BLOUNT, ERIC
Art Unit
2685
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Sol One
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
774 granted / 991 resolved
+16.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
1009
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
55.5%
+15.5% vs TC avg
§102
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
§112
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 991 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Claim Objections Claims 14 and 23 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 14 cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim (claim 13). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 14-17 and 23 have not been further treated on the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claim 13 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. More specifically it is unclear if claim 13 is an independent claim or a dependent claim, or if the claim is a multiple dependent claim. As such, examiner is unable to clearly determine the metes and bounds of the claim. Claim 14-17 are rejected in a similar manner as they depend from claim 13. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neuman et al [EP 3515161 A1]. As for claim 1, Neuman discloses a control loop application system comprises a plurality of units of electric circuit boards arranged in a stacked configuration (see Fig. 7 and claim 1), the control loop application system further comprises a top-level unit (520, 620) and at least one additional unit (521-524), the at least one additional unit (521-524) having components needed to perform at least one specific function for which the at least one additional unit (521-524) is designed (paragraphs 0025-0029; first and second circuit boards configured to function separately), characterized in that the top-level unit (520) having components such that the top-level unit is able to perform as a standalone unit without requiring the at least one additional unit (521-524) (paragraphs 0028-0029). As for claim 2, Neuman discloses that at least one additional unit (521-524, 621-623) has at least one I/O interface directly installed on the at least additional unit (521-524, 621-623) to accommodate for the at least one specific function of the additional unit (521-524, 621-623) (paragraphs 0020 and 0029). As for claim 3¸ Neuman discloses that the top-level unit (520, 620) comprises a power supply to provide power for the system (paragraph 0029). Claim 4 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. As for claim 18¸ Neuman discloses wherein the I/0 interfaces (552, 542, 532, 656, 657, 661) are directed to the same side in the stack (paragraphs 0043-0046). Claim 19 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. See also paragraph 0002. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 5-12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuman et al as applied to the claims above. As for claims 5-12 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. Neuman discloses various types of interfaces, connections, and functionality between stacked components (see paragraphs 0020-0022). As such, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Neuman to include various known components in order to yield desirable results. The selection of components is viewed as a matter of engineering preference that would be left to the artisan. Claim 22 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 5-12 above. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 20 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p. 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, Quan Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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. ERIC M. BLOUNT Primary Examiner Art Unit 2685 /Eric Blount/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 18, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600256
CHARGING CUE SYSTEM FOR A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595822
BEARING WITH DISTANCE SENSOR AND CONTROL UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588650
FAILURE INDICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579551
POS DEVICES AS BEACONS FOR CUSTOMER LOCATION IDENTIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565065
DRIVER VEHICLE CONTROL ASSISTANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
78%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+2.7%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 991 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