Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 21, 2026
Application No. 18/902,915

SUPPORTING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Sep 30, 2024
Priority
May 23, 2024 — TW 113119282
Examiner
HANSEN, JAMES ORVILLE
Art Unit
3637
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
King Slide Technology Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3m
Est. Remaining
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allowance Rate
796 granted / 1129 resolved
+18.5% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
1176
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
40.5%
+0.5% vs TC avg
§102
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
§112
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1129 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 23, 2026, has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments, filed September 23, 2026, with respect to the outstanding 112(b), 112(d), 102(a)(1) & 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the above mentioned rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and review, a new rejection is set forth as presented below. 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 1-7, 9 & 12-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2, 7-11, 14-15 & 19-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/896,916 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the recited features in the instant application are accounted for within the claimed scope of the reference application. As to features of the second ventilation hole structure arranged on the second bracket (i.e., the first part and second part as prescribed by applicant), the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the same features of the first ventilation hole structure arranged on the first bracket as would be attributed to the second ventilation hole structure on the second bracket, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter Pending a properly filed Terminal Disclaimer, Claims 1-7, 9 & 12-17 would be allowable. 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 supporting devices / brackets relating to rack structures. 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. JOH September 29, 2026 /James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 30, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP
Jun 30, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 15, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DP
Sep 23, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 27, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12765668
A MOVABLE PROJECTOR CABINET
3y 5m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12760959
REFRIGERATOR
2y 0m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12745840
BASE FOR AN ENCLOSURE COMPRISING AT LEAST ONE REMOVABLE PANEL AND METHOD OF FORMATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12745863
SHOE CARE DEVICE
2y 3m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12739996
CASING OF ELECTRICAL DEVICE
1y 10m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+21.8%)
2y 4m (~3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1129 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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