Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/622,859

Midair Warning Device for Ground Level Hazards

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Mar 29, 2024
Examiner
DAVIS, CASSANDRA HOPE
Art Unit
3631
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
789 granted / 1328 resolved
+7.4% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1371
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.9%
+1.9% vs TC avg
§102
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1328 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 Election/Restrictions Claims 4 and 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant's election with traverse of Group 2 in the reply filed on February 9, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Groups I and II as identified by the Examiner pertain to the same invention, and each includes an attachment base for mounting to a part of a building and a warning indicator connected to the attachment base, among other features. Group I is drawn to a warning indicator that is made of a flexible material, whereas Group Il consists of a rigid material. These differences do not alter the overall arrangement of the warning indicator relative to the attachment base, nor do they change the manner in which the warning indicator operates when installed to a part of a building. As a result, both Group I and Group II overlap in scope and would reasonably be expected to turn up in the same prior art search and be classified in the same areas. This is not found persuasive because the structure of Group I is different from the structure of Group II. Group 1 requires a flexible strip comprising a pocket with a weight therein and Group 2 requires a base, warning indicator with loop and/or hinge. The search for Group I is not required or the same as the search for Group II. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Objections Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “aid” in claim 9, line 4 should read “said and the term “positon” in claim 10 should read position. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-3, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20250046217 to Versteegen. Regarding claim 1, Versteegen teaches signage placard comprising: an attachment base (planar backing member 2) adapted to be attached to a part of a building (¶0003 and 0007) near a hazard to the man lift operator; a warning indicator (display member 1) connected to the attachment base (2) so that the warning indicator is visible to the man lift operator near eye level of the man lift operator. PNG media_image1.png 206 386 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Versteegen teaches the attachment base (2) is adapted to be attached to a part of the building above the eye level of the man lift operator (¶0003 and 0007). Regarding claim 3, Versteegen teaches the attachment base (2) is a flange with eyelets (apertures 5), the eyelets (5) adapted for inserting a fastener for attachment of the flange to the building (¶0030). Regarding claim 5, Versteegen teaches the warning indicator (1) is a ridged material and extends down from the flange (2; ¶0003 and 0026; and claim 8). Regarding claim 7, Versteegen teaches the warning indicator includes a reflector (reflective material; ¶0026). Regarding claim 8, Versteegen teaches the attachment base is a flange (5) with an adhesive layer, the adhesive layer adapted for attachment of the flange to the building (¶0029). Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4270291 to Babberl. Regarding claim 1, Babberl teaches sign construction comprising: an attachment base (upper mounting panel 12) adapted to be attached to a part of a building windowpane 11) near a hazard to the man lift operator; a warning indicator (sign structure 17) connected to the attachment base (11) so that the warning indicator is visible to the man lift operator near eye level of the man lift operator. PNG media_image2.png 324 232 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Babberl teaches the attachment base (11) is adapted to be attached to a part of the building (windowpane 11) above the eye level of the man lift operator. Regarding claim 5, Versteegen teaches the warning indicator (17) is a ridged material (cardboard or the like) and extends down from the flange (11). Regarding claim 6, Versteegen teaches a hinge (20) connects the warning indicator (17) to the attachment base (11). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-10 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. Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a midair warning device of claim 1, further including a set up unit for positioning the midair warning device, the setup unit including a base and a light, the base adapted to be positioned near a hazard and the light adapted to shine upward for positioning of aid attachment base of the midair warning device. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following US Patents are cited to show display device comprising an attachment base member and a sign or warning indicator member: US-20140311000, US-20120037581, US-2012001747, and US-5022173. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6642. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-4:30 PM. 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 571-272-8227. 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. /CASSANDRA DAVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 29, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602343
MATERIAL DISPLAY SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593932
FRAMED IMAGE RETENTION DEVICE AND METHOD OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582248
FLORAL FRAMES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12542078
DEVICE FOR A UTILITY VEHICLE STRUCTURE, AND UTILITY VEHICLE STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12522156
DEPLOYABLE FRONT LICENSE PLATE BRACKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 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
59%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+25.5%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1328 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