Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/786,381

NECK FAN

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jul 26, 2024
Examiner
REITZ, MICHAEL K.
Art Unit
3745
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
159 granted / 227 resolved
At TC average
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
264
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
51.1%
+11.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 227 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed November 27, 2025 have been fully considered. The previous 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections are withdrawn based upon the amendments. The new limitations however result in new 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections as presented below. Additionally, the specification is objected to. The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment and are therefore final. Specification The amendment filed November 27, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “A first angle is formed between an extension direction of the extension portion 3a and an extension portion of at least a portion of the plurality of air outlets 12. A second angle is formed between an extension direction of the tail portion 3b and the extension portion of the at least a portion of the plurality of air outlets 12. The second angle is greater than the first angle. The airflow equalization member arranged on the wind guide member and comprises at least one wind equalizing plate 321 protruding from a surface of the extension portion 3a and extending towards the plurality of air outlets 12” in paragraph [0310.1]. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. The reason the added material in paragraph [0310.0] is not supported by the original disclosure is that the drawings relied upon for support by the applicant. Since it is unclear what is required by the language regarding the angles as discussed in the 35 U.S.C 112(b) below, it is unclear if the drawings provide sufficient support that the applicant has possession of the matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 9-10, 12-14, 21-24, 29-30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 9 recites, “a first angle is formed between an extension direction of the extension portion and an extension direction of at least a portion of the plurality of air outlets; a second angle is formed between an extension direction of the tail portion and the extension direction of the at least a portion of the plurality of air outlets; the second angle is greater than the first angle”. There is no support in the original specification for these limitations. The drawings are therefore relied upon for support by the applicant. Since it is unclear what is required by the limitations as discussed in the 35 U.S.C 112(b) below, it is unclear if the drawings provide sufficient support that the applicant has possession of the claimed invention. 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 9-10, 12-14, 21-24, 29-30, and 32 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. Claim 9 recites, “the wind guide member comprises an extension portion and a tail portion, the extension portion extends from a position near a free end of the shell towards a rear side of the neck fan, the tail portion extends from an end of the extension portion away from the free end of the shell; a first angle is formed between an extension direction of the extension portion and an extension direction of at least a portion of the plurality of air outlets; a second angle is formed between an extension direction of the tail portion and the extension direction of the at least a portion of the plurality of air outlets; the second angle is greater than the first angle”. It is unclear if “an extension direction of the extension portion” is limited to by the earlier recitation of “extension portion extends from a position near a free end of the shell towards a rear side of the neck fan”. The extension portion is a three-dimensional object that extends in a at least 3 directions. Similarly, it is unclear if “an extension direction of the tail portion” is limited to by the earlier recitation of “the tail portion extends from an end of the extension portion away from the free end of the shell”. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by an extension direction of at least a portion of the plurality of air outlets. The plurality of air outlets themselves are three-dimensional holes, but also these instances may be arranged in a certain pattern. It is unclear if the extension direction refers to a directionality of the outlet or to the pattern of the outlets. Additionally, with regard to the concept of an extension direction of any element, even if the extension direction is defined down to a one direction (out of three-dimensions), it is unclear if the claim is requiring that the entire element extend in a singular direction (like an extrusion where a 2D shape is extended along another direction). If it does not, it is also unclear if an element is curved in the extension direction, if this means any of the multiple directions formed by the curvature could be considered an extension direction. The issues raised in the preceding paragraphs therefore also affect how to determine the claimed angles. It is noted that an object can extend in along a single dimension in either direction. If this is ambiguous in the claim, the numerical value of an angle may be said to be an angle or its supplemental angle. It is noted that the surface of (32) and the corresponding surface of the shell that comprises the outlets (12) does not appear to be simple planar surface. 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 MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m. 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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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 K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
May 03, 2025
Response Filed
May 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jul 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 27, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 27, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601265
COOLING SCHEMES FOR AIRFOILS FOR GAS TURBINE ENGINES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584498
FAN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571370
Rotatable Blade Apparatus With Individually Adjustable Blades
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12560102
AIR INTAKE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12455096
BLOWER
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+5.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 227 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