Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/756,537

MESH SCREEN FRAME LAMINATOR HEATING AND GUIDE STRUCTURE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jun 27, 2024
Examiner
GROSS, CARSON
Art Unit
1746
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Erdman Automation Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allowance Rate
550 granted / 754 resolved
+7.9% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
781
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
72.1%
+32.1% vs TC avg
§102
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
§112
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 754 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 with traverse of group II, claims 9-20, in the reply filed on 02/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the apparatus components of claim 1 are included in the method claims. This is not found persuasive because the apparatus as claimed can be used on different materials such that a materially different process is performed. While the method recites the same components as the apparatus, the apparatus claims recite such components broadly such that they could be utilized in a variety of patentably distinct methods. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Objections The claims filed on 02/16/20216 are objected to because the header of the claims incorrectly identifies the Application Number as 16/736,333. Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 9 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,365,145 (reference patent) in view of Toshihiko (JP 3702219 B2). Claim 12 of the reference patent recites a method including all of the limitations of the instantly claimed method, except that the reference application does not recite one smooth roller and one textured roller. Toshihiko teaches a method of forming a screen door net (1) surrounded by a frame (2), the method comprising using a smooth roller (7) and a textured roller (6) to advance the screen door net and frame (See Figures; [0006]-[0010]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use one smooth roller and one textured roller in the method claimed in the reference patent. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Toshihiko that to do so would predictably impart a desirable pattern on the screen door net (See [0008]-[0009]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-16 and 18-20 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 CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern. 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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. /CARSON GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 27, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12683470
Method to Improve Adhesion of Rotor Magnets Being Embedded in an Interior Permanent Magnet Motor
3y 4m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12676252
TAPING HEAD
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12673797
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR APPLYING A LABEL FOR THE AUTOMATED PRODUCTION OF E-VAPOR DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12668049
METHODS AND FORMULATIONS FOR BONDING DISSIMILAR MATERIALS
3y 6m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12654417
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING OF MULTILAYERED STRUCTURES
2y 1m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+21.4%)
2y 5m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 754 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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