Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/899,179

MULTI-UNIT ACCESS CONTROL AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Sep 27, 2024
Examiner
BOSWELL, CHRISTOPHER J
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Opentech Alliance Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
755 granted / 1129 resolved
+14.9% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1166
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
§102
48.9%
+8.9% vs TC avg
§112
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1129 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,146,345. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Number 12,146,345. In other words, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Number 12,146,345 fully encompasses the subject matter of claims 1-20 and therefore anticipates claims 1-20. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) or a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome the rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are allowable over the prior art of record because the teachings of the references taken as a whole do not teach or render obvious the combination set forth, including that of an element that closes the captive latch and locks the captive latch pin of the hasp in retention by the captive latch without involvement of the actuator, wherein rotation of the actuator counters a force of the element to open the captive latch and unlock the captive latch pin of the hasp from being in retention by the captive latch. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to powered actuated latch assemblies: U.S. Patent Number 10,672,211 to Flynn et al.; U.S. Patent Number 12,385,289 to Chiti et al.; U.S. Patent Number 12,392,166 to Luebeck et al. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7054. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9-4; F 9-12. 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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at 571-272-7376. 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. /CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 CJB /cb/ March 5, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 27, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12577827
SAFE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577809
LOCK APPARATUSES WITH SECONDARY LOCKING MECHANISMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577810
DISPENSER LOCKING ASSEMBLIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577805
LOCK ASSEMBLY AND METHOD OF INSTALLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577812
SECURITY TAG HOLDER
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
67%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+26.7%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1129 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