Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/582,821

Heat-Resistant Slide Device

Non-Final OA §101§103§112
Filed
Feb 21, 2024
Examiner
ZHANG, MICHAEL N
Art Unit
1781
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
212 granted / 396 resolved
-11.5% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
454
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
57.1%
+17.1% vs TC avg
§102
8.2%
-31.8% vs TC avg
§112
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 396 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, Claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/09/2025. The restriction requirement has been made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Regarding Claims 1 and 9, the claim recites “said top layer is in contact with a user sliding down said slide device”. A user is a human organism; therefore, Claim 1 and 9 recite a human organism which violates 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the AIA . Claims 2-8 and 10-15 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 1. 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. Claims 1-15 are 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. Regarding Claim 1 and 9, the claim recites “A slide device comprising a heat-resistance multilayered slide device; a top end; a bottom end…” and further edges and surfaces. However, it is uncertain if the slide device and the heat-resistant multi-layered slide device are the same object, or if the slide device is the heat-resistant multi-layered slide device plus a sliding platform. In addition, it is uncertain what top end, bottom end, edges and surfaces are referring to. Thus, there are issues of antecedent basis with regard to both Claim 1 and 9 that render the claims indefinite. For purposes of examination for all the claims, “heat-resistant multi-layered slide device” is interpreted to “heat-resistant multi-layered slide” and the further ends, surfaces, and edges are directed to the heat-resistant multi-layered slide, not the overall slide device. Claims 2-8 and 10-15 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 1 and 9. Regarding Claims 1 and 9, there is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “said first connector and said second connector” that renders the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, they are said first connector port and said second connector port. Claims 2-8 and 10-15 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 1 and 9. Regarding Claim 1 and 9, the claim recites “said top layer is in contact with a user sliding down said slide device”. This limitation is indefinite, as it is uncertain if it requires a user to be in contact with the top layer at all times to meet the claim. For purposes of examination, “sad top layer is configured to be in contact with a user sliding down said slide device”. Claims 2-8 and 10-15 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 1 and 9. 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. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delgado (US 5,697,851 A) in view of Donbaek (EP 2659942 A2). Regarding Claim 1, Delgado teaches a slide device (Fig. 2) comprising a slide. (Fig. 2, Item 56; Fig. 6). Delgado teaches the slide comprises a top end, a bottom end, a first longitudinal edge and an opposing second longitudinal edge, a continuous concave sliding surface between the top end and the bottom end, and where the top end has a C-shaped opening and the bottom end having a C-shaped opening. (Fig. 6). Delgado teaches the top end of the slide has a first connector port and an opposing second connector port (Fig. 6, Item 58), where the slide is selectively attachable to a sliding platform (Fig. 1-2). Delgado does not teach the slide is a heat-resistant multi-layered slide device. Donbaek teaches making slides out a multilayer polymer material (Abstract), comprising a top layer, a middle layer and a bottom layer. (Paragraph 0009-0010). Donbaek teaches the multilayer layer material is made of HDPE, a heat-resistant material. (Paragraph 0009). Donbaek teaches these polymer materials provide the advantage of reduced maintenance costs and improved safety. (Paragraph 0007) Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to make the slide of Delgado with the claimed multilayer plastic material of Donbaek for cheaper to maintain and safer playground equipment, where the top layer of the slide is configured for contact with a user sliding down the slide device. Regarding Claim 2, Delgado teaches the slide is a straight slide. (Fig. 6). Regarding Claim 3, Donbaek teaches the top layer can formed from HDPE. (Paragraph 0009). Regarding Claim 4, Donbaek teaches the core material is also HDPE, a thermal conductive matrix, which would draw heat away from the top layer due to conduction. (Paragraph 0009-0010). Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM. 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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. /Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 21, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600113
FLEXIBLE COVER WINDOW WITH IMPROVED STRENGTH
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600117
HYBRID ROOFING MEMBRANE AND METHODS OF MAKING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12576621
ADHESIVELESS THERMALLY LAMINATED BARRIER HEAT SEALING FILMS INCLUDING POLYETHYLENE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565723
Fabric with Flow Restricting Core
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558878
BI-DIRECTIONALLY ORIENTED MULTILAYER FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+25.9%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 396 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