Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/763,045

Insulated Roof Panels With Integrated Photovoltaic Panels

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 03, 2024
Examiner
MALLEY JR., DANIEL PATRICK
Art Unit
1726
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Pre-Insulated Metal Technologies Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
268 granted / 476 resolved
-8.7% vs TC avg
Strong +47% interview lift
Without
With
+47.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
533
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.2%
+5.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
§112
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 476 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed December 15th, 2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance. The 112(b) rejections over claim 6 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment. The rejections over Ceria et al. are maintained. New rejections follow. 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, 3-9, and 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, Applicant recites, “at least one photovoltaic panel integrally adhered to the deck of the panel”. Its unclear which “the panel” Applicant is referencing. Appropriate action is required. Regarding Claim 5, Applicant recites, “a pair of plates for holding end edges of the photovoltaic panels, a clamp on each plate” (claim 1), and “the plate between adjacent photovoltaic panels”. Its unclear if the plate recited in claim 5 corresponds to one of the plates in the pair of plates or if it is a newly introduced distinct plate. Appropriate action is required. Regarding Claim 15, Applicant recites, “a plurality connector”. Its unclear what structure corresponds to “a plurality” connector. Is it a plurality of different connectors? Is it a connector comprised with a plurality of outlets? Appropriate action is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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, 3-10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ceria (US 7,469,508 B2). In view of Claim 1, Ceria discloses an insulated roof panel (Fig. 3) comprising: an inner skin, (Fig. 3, #9 – bottom surface), an outer skin (Fig. 3, #7 – top surfaces including 10A-C), and an insulated material between the inner and outer skins (Fig. 3, #8) forming a panel (Fig. 3, #5 & Column 3, Lines 14-24); the outer skin comprising raised sides forming a deck therebetween (Fig. 3, top surfaces of 10A’, 10B’, 10C); at least one photovoltaic panel integrally adhered to the deck on the raised sides of the outer skin (Fig. 3, #14 & Column 4, Lines 14-24); a pair of plates for holding transverse ends edge of the at least one photovoltaic panels (Figs. 3-4, #16) a clamp on each plate covering the respective transverse end edge (Fig. 4, #14A & G, these elements are present on either side of the photovoltaic panel – Column 4, Lines 33-43); and at least one connector connecting with the photovoltaic panels for transferring electricity from the panel (Figs. 4 & 6, #14B – Column 4, Lines 13-24 & 44-67 through Column 5, Lines 1-42). In view of Claim 3, Ceria is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Ceria teaches at least one photovoltaic panel has a thickness so that the photovoltaic panel exposed surface is below a terminal surface of the raised sides(Fig. 4, #14 is adhered to the deck #20 - Column 7, Lines 25-38 or Fig. 6, the plateau/notch that the PV panel rests within) In view of Claim 4, Ceria is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Ceria teaches the plurality of photovoltaic panels are arranged in a series or parallel string connected to one another (Column 1, Lines 28-61). In view of Claim 5, as best understood by the Examiner, Ceria is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Ceria teaches the plate between adjacent photovoltaic panels includes a clamp on each side for covering the end edges of adjacent photovoltaic panels (Fig. 4, G). In view of Claim 6, Ceria is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Ceria teaches a junction box houses at least one connector (Figs. 4 & 6, there are wired connections coming from the PV panel Column 4, Lines 13-24 & 44-67 through Column 5, Lines 1-42). In view of Claim 7, Ceria is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Ceria teaches a junction box houses connectors from adjacent photovoltaic panels (Column 1, Lines 44-48). In view of Claim 8, Ceria is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Ceria teaches a junction box houses at least one connector (Figs. 4 & 6, there are wired connections coming from the PV panel Column 4, Lines 13-24 & 44-67 through Column 5, Lines 1-42), and the junction box exposed surfaces is positioned below the terminal surface of the raised sides (Figs, 4 & 6, bottom surface of junction box below raised sides). In view of Claim 9, Ceria is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Ceria teaches the raised sides include a standing seam (Fig. 6, 10B, where the top surface and side curved surfaces meet curved c-shaped structure is considered a “seam”). In view of Claim 10, Ceria discloses an insulated panel roof (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of insulated roof panels (Fig. 3) each panel having: an inner skin, (Fig. 3, #9 – bottom surface), an outer skin (Fig. 3, #7 – top surfaces including 10A-C), and an insulated material between the inner and outer skins (Fig. 2, #8) forming a panel (Fig. 2, #4 & Column 3, Lines 14-24); the outer skin comprising raised sides forming a deck therebetween (Fig. 3, top surfaces of 10A’, 10B’, 10C); a plurality of photovoltaic panels integrally adhered to the deck of each of the insulated panels (Fig. 3, #14 & Column 4, Lines 14-24); a plurality of plates for holding transverse ends edge of the at least one photovoltaic panel (Figs. 3-4, #16) at least one clamp on each plate covering the respective transverse end edge (Fig. 4, #14A & G, these elements are present on either side of the photovoltaic panel – Column 4, Lines 33-43); at least one connector connecting with the at least one photovoltaic panels for transferring electricity from the at least one photovoltaic panel (Figs. 4 & 6, #14B – Column 4, Lines 13-24 & 44-67 through Column 5, Lines 1-42); the plurality of photovoltaic panels are arranged in a series or parallel string connected to one another (Column 1, Lines 28-61). In view of Claim 12, Ceria is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Ceria teaches the plurality of photovoltaic panels having a thickness (Fig. 3, #14 thickness in the height direction) so that the panel bottom surface is exposed (Fig. 3, #14 bottom surface), and this bottom surface is below a terminal surface of the raised sides (Fig. 3, #14 is below the very top surface of 10A’-10C’). In view of Claim 13, Ceria is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Ceria teaches the plate between adjacent photovoltaic panels includes a clamp on each side for covering the end edges of adjacent photovoltaic panels (Fig. 4, G). In view of Claim 14, Ceria is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Ceria teaches a plurality of junction box houses at least one connector (Figs. 4 & 6, there are wired connections coming from the PV panel Column 4, Lines 13-24 & 44-67 through Column 5, Lines 1-42). In view of Claim 15, as best understood by the Examiner, Ceria is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Ceria teaches a plurality of junction boxes houses at least one connector, thus a plurality of connectors (Figs. 4 & 6, there are wired connections coming from the PV panel Column 4, Lines 13-24 & 44-67 through Column 5, Lines 1-42), and the junction box exposed surfaces is positioned below the terminal surface of the raised sides (Figs, 4 & 6, bottom surface of junction box below raised sides). In view of Claim 16, Ceria is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Ceria teaches the raised sides include a standing seam (Fig. 6, 10B, where the top surface and side curved surfaces meet curved c-shaped structure is considered a “seam”). In view of Claim 17, Ceria discloses a method of manufacturing an insulated roof panel integrated with photovoltaic panels (Fig. 3) comprising the steps of: forming an insulated roof panel with an inner skin, (Fig. 3, #9 – bottom surface), an outer skin (Fig. 3, #7 – top surfaces including 10A-C), and an insulated material between the inner and outer skins (Fig. 3, #8) forming a panel (Fig. 3, #5 & Column 3, Lines 14-24); the outer skin comprising raised sides forming a deck therebetween (Fig. 3, top surfaces of 10A’, 10B’, 10C); integrally adhering at least one photovoltaic panel to the deck of the outer skin of the insulated panel (Fig. 3, #14 & Column 4, Lines 14-24); positioning a pair of plates for holding transverse ends edge of the at least one photovoltaic panels (Figs. 3-4, #16) covering the transverse end edges of the photovoltaic panels with a clamp on each plate (Fig. 4, #14A & G, these elements are present on either side of the photovoltaic panel – Column 4, Lines 33-43); and connecting at least one connector with the photovoltaic panels for transferring electricity from the at least one photovoltaic panel (Figs. 4 & 6, #14B – Column 4, Lines 13-24 & 44-67 through Column 5, Lines 1-42). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 1, 3-10, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceria (US 7,469,508 B2) in view of Carolan et al. (US 2012/0186633 A1). In view of Claim 1, Ceria discloses an insulated roof panel (Fig. 3) comprising: an inner skin, (Fig. 3, #9 – bottom surface), an outer skin (Fig. 3, #7 – top surfaces including 10A-C), and an insulated material between the inner and outer skins (Fig. 3, #8) forming a panel (Fig. 3, #5 & Column 3, Lines 14-24); the outer skin comprising raised sides forming a deck therebetween (Fig. 3, top surfaces of 10A’, 10B’, 10C); at least one photovoltaic panel integrally adhered to the deck on the raised sides of the outer skin (Fig. 3, #14 & Column 4, Lines 14-24); a pair of plates for holding transverse ends edge of the at least one photovoltaic panels (Figs. 3-4, #16) a clamp on each plate covering the respective transverse end edge (Fig. 4, #14A & G, these elements are present on either side of the photovoltaic panel – Column 4, Lines 33-43); and at least one connector connecting with the photovoltaic panels for transferring electricity from the panel (Figs. 4 & 6, #14B – Column 4, Lines 13-24 & 44-67 through Column 5, Lines 1-42). Carolan et al. discloses a photovoltaic panel that is integrally adhered to the deck of an insulated roof panel (Fig. 10, #20A & Paragraph 0072) and that this configuration makes it so a separate carrier for photovoltaic panels are not required (Paragraph 0070). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate Carolan et al. photovoltaic panel that is integrally adhered to the deck of an insulated roof panel in Ceria’s configuration for the advantage of not requiring a separate carrier for the photovoltaic panels. In view of Claim 3, Ceria and Carolan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Carolan teaches at least one photovoltaic panel has a thickness so that the photovoltaic panel exposed surface is below a terminal surface of the raised sides (Fig. 11). In view of Claim 4, Ceria and Carolan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Ceria teaches the plurality of photovoltaic panels are arranged in a series or parallel string connected to one another (Column 1, Lines 28-61). In view of Claim 5, as best understood by the Examiner, Ceria and Carolan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Ceria teaches the plate between adjacent photovoltaic panels includes a clamp on each side for covering the end edges of adjacent photovoltaic panels (Fig. 4, G). In view of Claim 6, Ceria and Carolan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Ceria teaches a junction box houses at least one connector (Figs. 4 & 6, there are wired connections coming from the PV panel Column 4, Lines 13-24 & 44-67 through Column 5, Lines 1-42). In view of Claim 7, Ceria and Carolan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Ceria teaches a junction box houses connectors from adjacent photovoltaic panels (Column 1, Lines 44-48). In view of Claim 8, Ceria and Carolan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Ceria teaches a junction box houses at least one connector (Figs. 4 & 6, there are wired connections coming from the PV panel Column 4, Lines 13-24 & 44-67 through Column 5, Lines 1-42), and the junction box exposed surfaces is positioned below the terminal surface of the raised sides (Figs, 4 & 6, bottom surface of junction box below raised sides). In view of Claim 9, Ceria and Carolan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Ceria teaches the raised sides include a standing seam (Fig. 6, 10B, where the top surface and side curved surfaces meet curved c-shaped structure is considered a “seam”). In view of Claim 10, Ceria discloses an insulated panel roof (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of insulated roof panels (Fig. 3) each panel having: an inner skin, (Fig. 3, #9 – bottom surface), an outer skin (Fig. 3, #7 – top surfaces including 10A-C), and an insulated material between the inner and outer skins (Fig. 2, #8) forming a panel (Fig. 2, #4 & Column 3, Lines 14-24); the outer skin comprising raised sides forming a deck therebetween (Fig. 3, top surfaces of 10A’, 10B’, 10C); a plurality of photovoltaic panels integrally adhered to the deck of each of the insulated panels (Fig. 3, #14 & Column 4, Lines 14-24); a plurality of plates for holding transverse ends edge of the at least one photovoltaic panel (Figs. 3-4, #16) at least one clamp on each plate covering the respective transverse end edge (Fig. 4, #14A & G, these elements are present on either side of the photovoltaic panel – Column 4, Lines 33-43); at least one connector connecting with the at least one photovoltaic panels for transferring electricity from the at least one photovoltaic panel (Figs. 4 & 6, #14B – Column 4, Lines 13-24 & 44-67 through Column 5, Lines 1-42); the plurality of photovoltaic panels are arranged in a series or parallel string connected to one another (Column 1, Lines 28-61). Carolan et al. discloses a photovoltaic panel that is integrally adhered to the deck of an insulated roof panel (Fig. 10, #20A & Paragraph 0072) and that this configuration makes it so a separate carrier for photovoltaic panels are not required (Paragraph 0070). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate Carolan et al. photovoltaic panel that is integrally adhered to the deck of an insulated roof panel in Ceria’s configuration for the advantage of not requiring a separate carrier for the photovoltaic panels. In view of Claim 12, Ceria and Carolan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Carolan teaches at least one photovoltaic panel has a thickness so that the photovoltaic panel exposed surface is below a terminal surface of the raised sides (Fig. 11). In view of Claim 13, Ceria and Carolan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Ceria teaches the plate between adjacent photovoltaic panels includes a clamp on each side for covering the end edges of adjacent photovoltaic panels (Fig. 4, G). In view of Claim 14, Ceria and Carolan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Ceria teaches a plurality of junction box houses at least one connector (Figs. 4 & 6, there are wired connections coming from the PV panel Column 4, Lines 13-24 & 44-67 through Column 5, Lines 1-42). In view of Claim 15, as best understood by the Examiner, Ceria and Carolan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Ceria teaches a plurality of junction boxes houses at least one connector, thus a plurality of connectors (Figs. 4 & 6, there are wired connections coming from the PV panel Column 4, Lines 13-24 & 44-67 through Column 5, Lines 1-42), and the junction box exposed surfaces is positioned below the terminal surface of the raised sides (Figs, 4 & 6, bottom surface of junction box below raised sides). In view of Claim 16, Ceria and Carolan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Ceria teaches the raised sides include a standing seam (Fig. 6, 10B, where the top surface and side curved surfaces meet curved c-shaped structure is considered a “seam”). In view of Claim 17, Ceria discloses a method of manufacturing an insulated roof panel integrated with photovoltaic panels (Fig. 3) comprising the steps of: forming an insulated roof panel with an inner skin, (Fig. 3, #9 – bottom surface), an outer skin (Fig. 3, #7 – top surfaces including 10A-C), and an insulated material between the inner and outer skins (Fig. 3, #8) forming a panel (Fig. 3, #5 & Column 3, Lines 14-24); the outer skin comprising raised sides forming a deck therebetween (Fig. 3, top surfaces of 10A’, 10B’, 10C); integrally adhering at least one photovoltaic panel to the deck of the outer skin of the insulated panel (Fig. 3, #14 & Column 4, Lines 14-24); positioning a pair of plates for holding transverse ends edge of the at least one photovoltaic panels (Figs. 3-4, #16) covering the transverse end edges of the photovoltaic panels with a clamp on each plate (Fig. 4, #14A & G, these elements are present on either side of the photovoltaic panel – Column 4, Lines 33-43); and connecting at least one connector with the photovoltaic panels for transferring electricity from the at least one photovoltaic panel (Figs. 4 & 6, #14B – Column 4, Lines 13-24 & 44-67 through Column 5, Lines 1-42). Carolan et al. discloses a photovoltaic panel that is integrally adhered to the deck of an insulated roof panel (Fig. 10, #20A & Paragraph 0072) and that this configuration makes it so a separate carrier for photovoltaic panels are not required (Paragraph 0070). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate Carolan et al. photovoltaic panel that is integrally adhered to the deck of an insulated roof panel in Ceria’s configuration for the advantage of not requiring a separate carrier for the photovoltaic panels. Response to Arguments Applicant argues that Ceria et al. does not disclose that the at least one photovoltaic panel is integrally adhered to the deck. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that Ceria et al. discloses the outer skin comprises raised sides that has deck and that the pair of plates integrally forms the photovoltaic panel to the deck via clamping (See Annotated Ceria et al. Fig. 3, below). Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive. Annotated Ceria et al. Fig. 3 PNG media_image1.png 456 898 media_image1.png Greyscale Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST. 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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. /DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 03, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Dec 15, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604541
PHOTOELECTRIC CONVERSION MODULE, PADDLE, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PHOTOELECTRIC CONVERSION MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12581788
SOLAR CELL AND SOLAR CELL MODULE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580521
SOLAR MODULE SYSTEM, SOLAR SYSTEM, AND MOUNTING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575315
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567543
PHOTOELECTRIC CONVERSION ELEMENT AND SOLAR CELL MODULE
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+47.1%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 476 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