Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/884,261

Flight Craft

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Sep 13, 2024
Examiner
GORDON, ANNA L
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Iwaya Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
70 granted / 98 resolved
+19.4% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
130
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
46.4%
+6.4% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
32.7%
-7.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 98 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 appears to contain a typographical error where it recites “portions of the folded-back gores covering the front side of the intermediate member is interposed…” in lines 13-14. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “portions of the folded-back gores covering the front side of the intermediate member are interposed…” Appropriate correction is required. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “the front side” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-8 fail to cure the deficiency. 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. Claims 1, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Dutton (US 1289703 A). Regarding Claim 1, Dutton discloses a flight craft comprising: an intermediate member (annular ring 3, lines 48-52, examiner notes this ring is depicted in Fig. 2 as secured to 1 via fastener 4), which has an annular shape in a plan view (“annular ring 3”, lines 48-52) and has a flat cross-sectional shape when cut along a plane that includes a straight line in a direction of the plan view (Fig. 2); a gore (5, Fig. 2), which extends from an outer side to an inner side of the intermediate member in the plan view (lines 54-58, and Fig. 2, 5 extends from outer side of ring to inner side of ring), passes through an inner opening of the intermediate member (Fig. 2), is folded back (Fig. 2), and then extends from the inner side to the outer side of the intermediate member in the plan view (lines 54-58 and Fig. 2); where the front side is defined as a side facing outward in the plan view (top of Fig. 2, for example), and a rear side is defined as a side opposite to the front side (bottom of Fig. 2, for example), a front side member (plate 1, Fig. 2), which is positioned on the front side of the intermediate member such that portions of the folded-back gore covering the front side of the intermediate member is interposed between the front side member and the intermediate member (Fig. 2); a rear side member (8, Fig. 2) that is positioned on the rear side of the intermediate member (Fig. 2) such that portions of the folded-back gores covering the rear side of the intermediate member are interposed between the rear side member and the intermediate member (Fig. 2); and a tightening mechanism (4, 10, 11, and 12, Fig. 2) that tightens the front side member and the rear side member in a direction that brings them closer to each other (Fig. 2) to clamp the intermediate member and the folded-back gores therebetween (ring and 5 are clamped between 1 and 8, Fig. 2) such that the portions of the folded-back gore covering the front side of the intermediate member are clamped between the front side member and the intermediate member (Fig. 2) and the portions of the folded-back gore covering the rear side of the intermediate member are clamped between the rear side member and the intermediate member (Fig. 2). Dutton does not specifically disclose a plurality of gores, and instead discloses “material 5 from which the balloon is constructed” (lines 54-55). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify Dutton’s gore to be a plurality of gores, for ease of manufacturing large envelopes or different shape envelopes, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Regarding Claim 6, modified Dutton teaches the flight craft according to Claim 1, wherein: a shape of the intermediate member in the plan view is circular (Figs. 1-2 and “annular ring 3”, lines 48-52). Regarding Claim 8, modified Dutton teaches the flight craft according to Claim 1, further comprising: a cushioning member arranged to cover at least one of an inner edge of the intermediate member, an outer edge of the intermediate member, an outer edge of the front side member, and an outer edge of the rear side member (packing 13 is arranged to cover an inner edge of the intermediate member, Fig. 2). Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton as applied above, and further in view of Kennan et al. (US 20210053667 A1), hereafter Kennan. Regarding Claim 7, Dutton discloses the flight craft according to Claim 1. Dutton is silent about wherein at least one of an inner edge of the intermediate member, an outer edge of the intermediate member, an outer edge of the front side member, and an outer edge of the rear side member is chamfered. Kennan teaches employing a chamfered edge on a member in contact with an envelope material (para. [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the chamfered edge as taught by Kennan, with at least one of an inner edge of the intermediate member, an outer edge of the intermediate member, an outer edge of the front side member, and an outer edge of the rear side member of Dutton, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to avoid snagging or catching on the envelope material (Kenna, para. [0032]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior arts of record, individually or in combination, do not disclose or render obvious the combined limitations of Claim 2. The closest prior art of record is Dutton (US 1289703 A). While Dutton teaches a rear side sealing member (13, Fig. 2), Dutton is silent about a front side sealing member, which is annular and is positioned between the front side member and the intermediate member such that it is covered by the gores which are folded back, and is arranged to be in contact with an entire circumference of the intermediate member which is annular. While Dutton does teach a front side sealing member (packing 7, Fig. 2), Dutton’s front side sealing member is positioned between the front side member and the rear side member, not the front side member and the intermediate member as required by claim 2. Additionally, Dutton’s front side sealing member is not covered by the gores which are folded back, and it would not be obvious to combine or modify the prior arts of record to teach the invention as claimed. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm. 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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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. /ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 13, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Oct 16, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 15, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600462
Device for piloting an aircraft and associated method
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584433
DEFLECTOR EXHAUST NOZZLE FOR AS350/EC130 AND FOR OTHER SINGLE ENGINE HELICOPTERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576984
FUSELAGE FOR AN AIRCRAFT OR SPACECRAFT, AND AIRCRAFT OR SPACECRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570395
Winglet Control Surfaces and Methods for Use Therewith
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557910
FLEXIBLE SUPPORT DEVICE FOR CHAIR BACK TILTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.5%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 98 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