Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/897,802

Subliminal Security Apparatus and Method

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Sep 26, 2024
Examiner
DAVIS, CASSANDRA HOPE
Art Unit
3631
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
789 granted / 1328 resolved
+7.4% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1371
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.9%
+1.9% vs TC avg
§102
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1328 resolved cases

Office Action

§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: the term “hte” should read “the”. 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 1-5 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 5 is indefinite because a claim cannot be both method and apparatus. It must be clear from the wording that it is draw to one or the other of the mutually exclusive statutory classes of invention. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). The preamble recites “[a] means of deterring criminality in a public space” which implies the claim is drawn to an apparatus. However, following the preamble the claims recites step or method limitations, which are drawn to method claim. Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if the written subliminal message comprising phosphorescent paint (line 2) in addition to the liquid metal or fluorescent paint. Claim 1 recites “a written subliminal message, comprising phosphorescent paint disposed upon a surface” (claim 2) and “the written subliminal message, picture or image comprises liquid metal or fluorescent paint (lines 5-6). Regarding claim 2, it is unclear if the fluorescent paint is the same as the fluorescent paint recited in claim 1. Regarding claim 3, it is unclear if the liquid metal paint is the same as the liquid metal paint recited in claim 1. 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jason Daley, (2019, January 4), Basquiat Painting Has Hidden Black-Light Images, Smithsonian magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/basquiat-painting-has-hidden-blacklight-images-180971167/ in view of US 5498280 to Fistner et al. (Fistner). Daley teaches an untitled work by Jean-Michel Basquiat comprises projectiles (arrows, subliminal message) that pierce the 1981 untitled work that can only be seen using a black light. The arrows are “scrawled using a black-light crayon”. Daley teaches an untitled work by Jean-Michel Basquiat comprises a written subliminal message (projectiles/arrows), comprising phosphorescent paint (black-light crayon) disposed upon a surface (canvas), adapted to be unperceivable to the human eye, and at least one optical element (projectiles/arrows), adapted to convey a message to the human eye via the written subliminal message, picture or image, wherein the written subliminal message, picture or image comprises liquid metal or fluorescent paint (black-light crayon). Daley does not teach the black-light crayon comprises both phosphorescent and fluorescent pigments Fistner teaches a crayon comprising both high and low molecular weight polyethylene glycols in combination with phosphorescent and fluorescent pigments. Fistner teaches “crayons, and marks made using such crayons, will fluoresce under ordinary lighting conditions, e.g., sunlight or illuminated rooms, and also phosphoresce (glow) in a darkened area when the crayon or mark is taken from an illuminated area to the darkened area” (column 3, lines 20-25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct arrows created using a black-light crayon taught by Daley with a crayon comprising phosphorescent and fluorescent pigments as taught by Fistner with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an image that fluoresce under ordinary lighting conditions, e.g., sunlight or illuminated rooms, and also phosphoresce (glow) in a darkened area when the crayon or mark is taken from an illuminated area to the darkened area (column 3, line 20-25). Regarding claim 2, Daley teaches the subliminal message, picture or image (arrows created using a black-light crayon). Fistner a crayon to make marks or images comprising fluorescent paint which are visible when a black lighting is applied. Regarding claim 4, Daley teaches the written subliminal message comprises a text color and a background color, wherein the text color is one or less different from the background color on a light reflection value scale. Regarding claim 5, Daley teaches subliminal security apparatus (untiled painting) of claim 1 in the public space. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 3 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 prior art of record does not teach or suggest the message, picture or image comprises liquid metal to which heat is applied. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 5221962 to Backus et al. is cited to show a subliminal device having manual adjustment of perception level of subliminal messages adapted for use upon a human eye, comprising: a subliminal message 64, disposed upon a surface 69, adapted to be unperceivable to the human eye, and; at least one optical element 50adapted to convey a message to the human eye via the subliminal message. US Patent 3060795 to Corrigan is cited to show a visual stimulation apparatus adapted for use upon a human eye, comprising: a subliminal message, disposed upon a surface (wall), adapted to be unperceivable to the human eye, and; at least one optical element (magic lantern), adapted to convey a message to the human eye via the subliminal message. (See column 24, lines 11-19). US Patent 4279088 to Hyre is cited to show a visual stimulation apparatus adapted for use upon a human eye 14, comprising: a subliminal message, disposed upon a surface 36, adapted to be unperceivable to the human eye, and; at least one optical element (lamp 22 and lens 24), adapted to convey a message to the human eye via the subliminal message. (See column 3, lines 7-63). US 4734037 to McClure is cited to show a message screen comprising: written subliminal message 12, disposed upon a surface 10, adapted to be unperceivable to the human eye, and at least one optical element 22, adapted to convey a message to the human eye via the written subliminal message, wherein the at least one optical element is an enshrouding image consisting of dots within a matrix or an abstract design, picture or image. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6642. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 571-272-8227. 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. /CASSANDRA DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 26, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602343
MATERIAL DISPLAY SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593932
FRAMED IMAGE RETENTION DEVICE AND METHOD OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582248
FLORAL FRAMES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12542078
DEVICE FOR A UTILITY VEHICLE STRUCTURE, AND UTILITY VEHICLE STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12522156
DEPLOYABLE FRONT LICENSE PLATE BRACKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 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
59%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+25.5%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1328 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month