Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/797,132

SHIELD MEMBER, CONNECTOR WITH SHIELD MEMBER, ELECTRONIC COMPONENT WITH SHIELD, SHIELD, AND SHIELD STRUCTURE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Aug 07, 2024
Priority
Aug 08, 2023 — JP 2023-129612
Examiner
PATEL, HARSHAD C
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Iriso Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
940 granted / 1135 resolved
+22.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 10m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1147
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
§112
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1135 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 . 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 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No.18/796478, hereafter ’478. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claim 1 of an instant application is broader than independent claims 1, 10, 13 and 14, because the claimed limitations of claim 1 are claimed in these independent claims. Claim 1 of the instant application is equivalent to claims 1, 3, 10, 13 and 14 of the copending application ’478. Claim 2 of the instant application is equivalent to claim 4 of the copending application ’478. Claims 3 and 4 of the instant application is equivalent to claim 6 of the copending application ’478. Claim 6 of the instant application is equivalent to claim 7 of the copending application ’478. Claim 7 of the instant application is equivalent to claim 8 of the copending application ’478. Similarly claims 9-11 are equivalent to claims 1-9, 13 and 14 of the copending application ’478. Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No.18/797,462, hereafter ’462. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, the only differences are differing the terminology used for some parts e.g. shielding targets is same as a connector: Claims 1na 9 of an instant application is broader than independent claims 1-9, because the claimed limitations of claim 1 are claimed in claims 1-9. Claim 1 of the instant application is equivalent to claims 4, 58, 9 of the copending application ’462. Claims 2 -9 are already indirectly claimed in claims 2-9 of the copending application ’462. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached US PTO 892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARSHAD C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8289. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am - 5.00 pm (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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at 571-270 3119. 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. /HARSHAD C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 07, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12749836
ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR HAVING CONTACT ELEMENTS WITH SUPERELASTIC PROPERTIES
5y 2m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12749842
CONNECTOR
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12749837
INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF SOCKET AND SOCKET
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12749852
CONNECTION STRUCTURE OF WIRING MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12738678
CONNECTOR MODULE WITH SUPPORTING BLOCK FOR POSITIONING CABLE CONNECTOR
3y 1m to grant Granted Sep 15, 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
83%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+8.5%)
1y 10m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1135 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