Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/856,596

DOOR OPENING AND CLOSING DEVICE AND ELECTRICAL APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Oct 11, 2024
Examiner
HANSEN, JAMES ORVILLE
Art Unit
3637
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Midea Group Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
771 granted / 1098 resolved
+18.2% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1128
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
38.8%
-1.2% vs TC avg
§102
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
§112
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1098 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
DETAILED ACTION Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on October 11, 2024 & November 30, 2025 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claims 1-11, 13-16, 19-21, 24 & 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 fails to recite sufficient structural elements and the interconnection of elements to positively position and define the “door opening and closing device” so that an integral structural apparatus is set forth which is able to function as claimed. In Claim 21, the phrase “the base” line 3, does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 24, the phrase “the base” line 2, does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 27, the phrase “the base” line 3, does not have a proper antecedent basis. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite claim. 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 1-2, 8-10, 13, 16, 19-21, 24 & 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-17 of co-pending Application No. 18/856,066 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed features within the cited claims of the instant invention are present and accounted for within the reference application. For example, the claimed features of Claim 1 of the instant invention are accounted for within Claims 1 & 13 of the reference application. Subsequently, the claimed features of Claim 2 of the instant invention is accounted for within Claim 14 of the reference application; the claimed features of Claims 8-10 of the instant invention are accounted for within Claim 14 of the reference application; the claimed features of Claim 13 of the instant invention is accounted for within Claim 16 of the reference application; the claimed features of Claim 16 of the instant invention are accounted for within Claims 2, 3 & 4 of the reference application; the claimed features of Claim 19 of the instant invention is accounted for within Claim 5 of the reference application; the claimed features of Claim 20 of the instant invention is accounted for within Claim 6 of the reference application; the claimed features of Claim 21 of the instant invention are accounted for within Claims 7, 8 & 9 of the reference application; the claimed features of Claim 24 of the instant invention are accounted for within Claims 10, 11 & 12 of the reference application; and the claimed features of Claim 27 of the instant invention is accounted for within Claim 17 of the reference application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-7, 11 & 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include 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 – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing various door closing and opening devices associated with a refrigeration appliance. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm. 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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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. JOH March 27, 2026 /James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 11, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599228
LOCATING SLOT FOR A TRIGGER SUPPORT ARM OF A SLIDE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599283
UNIVERSAL TRIGGER ASSEMBLY FOR A SLIDE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599229
FLIP-DOWN ELECTRONICS CABINET HAVING CIRCUIT CONTROLLING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593915
STORAGE CABINET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595957
REFRIGERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
70%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+22.7%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1098 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