Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/821,357

Container For Flight Craft, And Flight Craft Pressure

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 30, 2024
Examiner
NASH, BRIAN D
Art Unit
3734
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Iwaya Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1065 granted / 1300 resolved
+11.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
8 currently pending
Career history
1308
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
§102
39.2%
-0.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1300 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Examiner’s Comments The Examiner notes that the office action below may reference support found in the cited prior art by indicating element numbers, figures or by pointing out a specific paragraph (PAR) number in which support can be found. The PAR number referenced corresponds to paragraph number beginning in the "Detailed Description" of the disclosure unless otherwise noted. The pending claims are 1-12. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. 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 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 of this title, 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. Claims 1-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,067,666 to Roach et al. With regard to claims 1-2, Roach discloses the invention substantially as claimed including a container for a flight craft, comprising: a main body (balloon envelope 302, fig. 3) that contains air (amongst other gases, PAR 56) and is airtight against an external space; and a restraining member made of an elastic material having a cage-like structure (fig. 6 better shows an embodiment of balloon envelope 620 restrained by a cage-like structure of horizontal, 612, 614, 616, and vertical, 602, 604, 606, members arranged to cover the main body, PAR 56, discloses the cage-like structure may be made of a flexible material, i.e. elastic); wherein the restraining member restrains a wall of the main body to generate a force that counteracts an inward to outward force that acts on the main body due to a difference between an internal and external pressure during flight. Roach does not explicitly disclose an adjusting mechanism for adjusting the length of a portion of the cage-like restraining member; however, Roach does disclose (PAR 56) that the size and shape of the balloon skirt, i.e. cage-like restraining member, may vary depending upon the particular implementation, i.e. the length of the cage-like structure may be adjusted. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to adjust the length of the cage-like balloon skirt of Roach. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing the best suited size and shape restraining member for the balloon to be implemented. With regard to claims 3, 8, wherein the restraining member is connected by suspension cables to a buoyancy-generating member which generates buoyancy, or to a lift-generating member which generates lift (PAR 64 discloses an altitude control system). With regard to claims 4, 9, wherein the restraining member is detachable from the main body (PAR 83 discloses the cage-like restraining member does not need to be rigidly attached to the balloon). With regard to claims 5, 10, wherein a cushioning member provided between the main body and the restraining member (PAR 90-91 disclose certain horizontal members may include built-in eyelets thereby allowing the vertical members to pass directly through the horizontal members, thus providing “cushioning” space between the vertical members and the balloon). With regard to claims 6-7, 11-12, wherein a connecting mechanism that connects the restraining member and an object to be positioned outside the main body (PAR 55, fig. 3, disclose the flight craft balloon carrying a payload outside the main balloon body). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to attachment (PTO-892) for notice of references cited and recommended for consideration based on their disclosure of limitations of the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Nash whose telephone number is 571-272-4465. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. The official fax number for this Group is: 571-273-8300; Inventor Assistance Center is 800-786-9199. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system; see www.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /BRIAN D NASH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 11/17/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 30, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599222
ANTI-LOSS ROPE AND ANTI-LOSS DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594472
Ice chest holder structure for golf cart
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594890
REAR CARGO ATTIC TRAY SYSTEMS AND REAR CARGO ATTIC TRAYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589698
TRIPLE SLIDING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576795
VEHICLE SEATING ASSEMBLY HAVING A SEAT BACK WITH AN ATTACHABLE MODULAR ACCESSORY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+13.9%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1300 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