Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 23, 2026
Application No. 18/792,989

MODULAR AIR FILTER ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §102§DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Aug 02, 2024
Examiner
LAWRENCE JR, FRANK M
Art Unit
1776
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Caterpillar Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
1202 granted / 1434 resolved
+18.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
1461
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§102
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
§112
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1434 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DOUBLEPATENT
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 . Claim Objections Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1 it appears that “a” should be deleted. 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. Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 11-14 of copending Application No. 18/792,974 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the instant claims are encompassed in the copending claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitsuda (US 8,926,726). Mitsuda ‘726 teaches a filter assembly comprising a tubular housing (60) with opposite ends and a curved surface, an inlet (17) extending radially outward of the curved surface, and two brackets (54,55) configured to attach to the curved surface at a plurality of radial configurations (see figures 2-11, 19-21, col. 5, lines 34-60). Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tokar (US 4,491,460) as evidenced by Bisbing (US 3,466,076). Tokar ‘460 teaches a filter assembly comprising a tubular housing (18) with opposite ends and a curved surface, an inlet (20) extending radially outward of the curved surface, and two brackets (34,34,38) configured to attach to the curved surface at a plurality of radial configurations (see figures 1, 2, col. 2, lines 31-50). The brackets are disclosed as being described in detail in Bisbing ‘076, which shows clasps that define a channel (41) that extends between the ends (see figures, col. 3, lines 5-18). Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scott et al. (US 7,537,631). Scott et al. ‘631 teach a filter assembly comprising a tubular housing (3) with opposite ends and a curved surface, an inlet (5) extending radially outward of the curved surface, and several brackets (271,272,273) configured to attach to the curved surface at a plurality of radial configurations (see figure 1, col. 20, line 63 to col. 21, line 38). Each bracket includes a channel (opening in receiver 273) extending from its inner to outer side. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 16-20 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a motivation for two or more brackets having a curved surface including a channel with two or more fastener holes defined through a surface of the channel, and a plurality of supports fastenable to the brackets, in combination with the other recited structural limitations. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Claims 2 and 4-15 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 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references listed on the attached PTO-892 form disclose filter housing and bracket arrangements. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1161. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-7pm. 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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. /FRANK M LAWRENCE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776 fl
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 02, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §DOUBLEPATENT
Oct 07, 2026
Interview Requested
Oct 13, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 13, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12766441
A METHOD AND A SEPARATION SYSTEM
2y 3m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12758987
GAS EXTRACTOR PROVIDING ACTIVE FLUID TRANSPORT AND CIRCULATION
2y 11m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12758914
NANOFIBER FILTER AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 4m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12752234
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DIRECT AIR CAPTURE OF WATER AND CO2
3y 7m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12752232
CONTACTOR ASSEMBLY AND SORBENT CARTRIDGE HAVING SORBENT BED FOR CONTACTOR ASSEMBLY
2y 9m to grant Granted Oct 06, 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
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.0%)
2y 4m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1434 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