Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/835,009

FLOATING UNIT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 31, 2024
Examiner
HARP, WILLIAM RAY
Art Unit
3653
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Eitzenberger GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
902 granted / 1142 resolved
+27.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1173
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
39.6%
-0.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
§112
29.8%
-10.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1142 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . The specification, abstract, drawings and claims of July 31, 2024 are under examination. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on July 31, 2024. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Claim Objections Claim 27 should be dependent upon claim 26, as claim 27 lacks antecedent basis for “the first arrangement pattern”. Claim 29 should be dependent upon claim 28, as claim 29 lacks antecedent basis for “the edge channels”. 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) 18-22, 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inamasu et al. (USPN 8307778). Regarding Claim(s) 18, Inamasu et al. (USPN 8307778) teaches a floating unit for carrying and transporting a substantially flat body, the floating unit comprising: a carrier plate (stage 76), the carrier plate comprising: a first plurality of pressure nozzles (openings 88), and a first plurality of vacuum nozzles (openings 90) on a first surface, wherein a first plurality of channels (slots 88m, 90m) which extend both from the pressure nozzles of the first plurality of pressure nozzles and from the vacuum nozzles of the first plurality of vacuum nozzles is provided in the first surface (see Figure 6, 7A,7B). Regarding Claim(s) 19, the channels are parallel (see Figure 6). Regarding Claim(s) 20, the channels associated with pressure nozzles and the channels associated with vacuum nozzles are provided alternately perpendicular to their extension (see Figure 6). Regarding Claim(s) 21, the channels extend from each pressure nozzle of the first plurality of pressure nozzles and from each vacuum nozzle of the first plurality of vacuum nozzles in opposite directions starting from the pressure nozzles and the vacuum nozzles (see Figure 6). Regarding Claim(s) 22, the pressure nozzles of the first plurality of pressure nozzles and the vacuum nozzles of the first plurality of vacuum nozzles are each arranged in the center of the channels (see Figure 6). Regarding Claim(s) 26, the first plurality of pressure nozzles, the first plurality of vacuum nozzles and the associated channels have a regular first arrangement pattern (see Figure 6). Regarding Claim(s) 27, a second plurality of pressure nozzles is provided in a transport direction provided for the flat body, following the first arrangement pattern, which have a second arrangement pattern which differs from the first arrangement pattern (see Figure 6, section M4, M5, which shows a different pattern of openings 88). Regarding Claim(s) 32, Inamasu et al. teaches Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inamasu et al. as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Grundmuller et al. (USPN 8785812). Regarding Claim(s) 24, Inamasu et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the pressure nozzles of the first plurality of pressure nozzles have a smaller cross-section than the vacuum nozzles of the first plurality of vacuum nozzles. Grundmuller et al. (USPN 8785812) teaches pressure nozzles (outflow orifices 15) having a smaller cross-section than vacuum nozzles (orifices 14) [Col. 3:61-65]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Inamasu et al. such that the pressure nozzles of the first plurality of pressure nozzles have a smaller cross-section than the vacuum nozzles of the first plurality of vacuum nozzles in order to prevent air buildup under the body. Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inamasu et al. as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Yassour et al. (USPN 7530778). Regarding Claim(s) 32, Inamasu et al. teaches the limitations described above and teaches a gas supply (89), yet fails to teach a distributor for supplying and discharging air is arranged on a second surface of the carrier plate opposite the first surface. Yassour et al. (USPN 7530778) teaches a distributor (pressure reservoir 86) for supplying and discharging air is arranged on a second surface of the carrier plate (platform 80a) opposite the first surface. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a distributor for supplying and discharging air is arranged on a second surface of the carrier plate opposite the first surface in order to supply air as taught by Yassour et al. since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results. Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inamasu et al. as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Adin et al. (US Pub 20050015170 A1). Regarding Claim(s) 33, Inamasu et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a laser device is provided for detecting a position of the flat body. Adin et al. teaches a laser scanner (318) to detect a position of the flat body (substrate 304). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a laser device to detect a position of the flat body as taught by Adin et al. since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results. Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inamasu et al. Regarding Claim(s) 34, Inamasu et al. teaches a system for carrying and transporting at least one substantially flat body, the system comprising: a floating unit, each floating unit for carrying and transporting the at least one substantially flat body, each floating unit comprising: a carrier plate (stage 76), the carrier plate comprising: a first plurality of pressure nozzles (openings 88), and a first plurality of vacuum nozzles (openings 90) on a first surface, wherein a first plurality of channels (slots 88m, 90m) which extend both from the pressure nozzles of the first plurality of pressure nozzles and from the vacuum nozzles of the first plurality of vacuum nozzles is provided in the first surface. Inamasu et al. fails to teach at least two floating units and wherein the first surfaces of the floating units lie in one plane. However, duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Providing more than one floating unit would permit larger bodies to be handled. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least two floating units in order to handle larger bodies. Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the first surface in a single plane in order to support the body equally by both floating units. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 23, 25, 28-31 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. USPN 5078775 discloses a floating unit having channels extending from pressure nozzles and vacuum nozzles and would read on at least claim 18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm. 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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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. /WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 31, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595137
APPARATUS FOR TRANSFERRING AND ACCUMULATING OBJECTS AND PACKAGING LINE COMPRISING SAID APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589949
RETAINING UNIT FOR RETAINING A CONTAINER AND RETAINING DEVICE AND APPARATUS COMPRISING SAID RETAINING UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583576
Device for Adjusting Center of Gravity
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577054
Conveyor Drive Roller With Pressure Relief Means
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570474
BATTERY CONVEYOR BELT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
79%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+10.6%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1142 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