Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/737,895

PATCH

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 07, 2024
Examiner
BARLOW, ADAM G
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
556 granted / 786 resolved
+18.7% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
816
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
50.9%
+10.9% vs TC avg
§102
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 786 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3, 10-12, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Watkins (GB 2188080). In re Claim 1, 10 Watkins teaches a patch/tile (5) with a unitary body having an inner face and an outer face opposite the inner face, wherein the outer face includes an aesthetic portion and a channel (6) defined in the inner face with hook and loop fasteners (9,10,13,14). (Figures 1-4, annotated figure) PNG media_image1.png 222 551 media_image1.png Greyscale The limitations “ for covering an opening in a surface”, “to abut the surface over the opening in the surface”, ” to provide an aesthetic visual to cover the opening in the surface”, and “ to hold one or more fasteners for mounting the unitary body to the surface such that the inner face sits flush on the surface” are functional limitations directed to the intended use of the product and are therefore afforded limited weight in a product claim. The disclosed product is capable of performing the functions. In re Claims 2 and 3, Watkins teaches the outer face includes a contoured outer perimeter portion and wherein the aesthetic portion of the outer face is defined within the contoured outer perimeter portion. The aesthetic portion includes a solid, untextured face (Figures 1-4, annotated figure) In re Claims 11 and 12, Watkins has been previously disclosed. The limitations “to cover an irregular shaped opening in the surface without requiring cutting the opening in the surface to be a regular shape” and “to cover the opening in the surface without requiring cutting the opening in the surface to match a shape or size of the unitary body” are functional limitations directed to the intended use of the product and are therefore afforded limited weight in a product claim. The disclosed product is capable of performing the functions. The positively claimed elements are directed to the patch/cover. The opening being covered has not been positively claimed. The Watkins tile/patch need only be capable of covering them which they are. In re Claim 15, Watkins has been previously disclosed. As was noted, Watkins teaches a channel (6) with hook and loop fasteners (9,10,13,14). The limitations “to allow the unitary body to be placed on the surface and removed from the surface to allow access to equipment behind the surface accessible through the opening” are functional limitations directed to the intended use of the product and are therefore afforded limited weight in a product claim. The disclosed product is capable of performing the functions. In re Claim 16-17, Watkins has been previously disclosed. As was previously noted, the positively claimed elements are directed to the patch/cover. The opening being covered has not been positively claimed and is therefore afforded only limited weight. Language directed to the opening being an access opening or wall damage is not considered since it limits a claim element that has not been positively claimed. Furthermore, the limitations “for allowing access to mechanical or electrical equipment installed behind the wall or ceiling, wherein the unitary body is configured to cover the access opening when the access opening is not in use” and “to provide an aesthetic cover for the damage to the wall or ceiling”. The Watkins tile/patch need only be capable of covering an access opening, allowing access, or providing an aesthetic cover for damage which they are. 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) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins (GB 2188080). In re Claims 13 and 14, Watkins has been previously discussed but does not teach that the unitary body is at least 10 inches by 10 inches or at least 15 inches by 15 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art made to have patches/tiles in these size ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Patches/tiles of these sizes would allow for continuous coverage of a sizable underlying wall surface. Claim(s) 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins (GB 2188080) in view of Schrunk (U.S. 20040200164) In re Claims 4-6 Watkins has been previously discussed but does not teach a plurality of troughs defined partially therein, configured to resemble an air vent. Schrunk teaches wall panels with a plurality of troughs (20B,43). The troughs are partially recessed into the outer face but do not extend through the unitary body to the inner face. Since the troughs do not extend through body, no airflow is able to pass through the plurality of troughs from the inner face to the outer face or from the outer face to the inner face. (Figures 1-12) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to the invention to incorporate the troughs into the Watkins panels for aesthetic reasons. The plurality of troughs in the panel resembles an air vent. In re Claims 7-9 Watkins has been previously discussed but does not teach a plurality of circular features defined partially therein, configured to resemble a speaker mesh. As was noted, Schrunk teaches decorative faux surfaces for aesthetic purposes. While Schrunk specifically teaches an array of troughs that do not extend through the body, other decorative designs such as an array of partially recessed circular features would be an obvious decorative surface. No airflow would pass through partially recessed circular features. As an array, they would resemble a speaker mesh and would be an obvious matter of design choice. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to the invention to modify Watkins panels with an array of partially recessed circular features for aesthetic reasons. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571) 272-6754. 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. /ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633 /BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 07, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 06, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590452
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MODULAR CONSTRUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12559942
SELF-SPACING LAP AND PANEL SIDING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12540467
CONSTRUCTION METHOD FOR PLANT FACILITY AND PLANT CONFIGURING MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12529232
CLADDING PANEL THAT COLLECTS AND/OR EMITS THERMAL ENERGY
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12523321
RISER AND INGRESS DEVICE ASSEMBLY FOR SEPTIC TANK SYSTEM
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
71%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+20.3%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 786 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