Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/933,429

AIR CLEANING APPARATUS WITH A MOIST FILTER

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Oct 31, 2024
Priority
May 29, 2017 — RE 10-2017-0066166 +4 more
Examiner
ORLANDO, AMBER ROSE
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Watervation Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 0m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allowance Rate
429 granted / 671 resolved
+3.9% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
679
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
58.2%
+18.2% vs TC avg
§102
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
§112
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 671 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 11-30 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4-6, 8, of U.S. Patent No. US 12,246,280 (‘280). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 21, 23 and 26-28 corresponds to claims 1 and 4 of ‘280. Claim 13 corresponds to claim 6 of ‘280. Claims 16 and 29 correspond to claims 1 and 4 but does not disclose the additional reservoir has an annular shape. It is noted that the configuration of the claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Claims 17 and 30 correspond to claim 8 of ‘280. Claim 22 corresponds to claim 5 of ‘280. Claims 24 and 25 correspond to claim 3 of ‘280. Claims 18-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,246,280 (‘280) in view of Son et al. US 2017/0122593. For claims 18-20 the ‘280 reference does not disclose the lower body has second air holes communicating with the inside of the screen, the second air holes are formed around an outer periphery of the lower body and the second air holes are formed to surround the screen. The Son et al. reference discloses the lower body has second air holes communicating with the inside of the humidification medium, the second air holes are formed around an outer periphery of the lower body and the second air holes are formed to surround the humidification medium (objects 31 and 51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘280 reference to include the lower body has second air holes communicating with the inside of the screen, the second air holes are formed around an outer periphery of the lower body and the second air holes are formed to surround the screen (Son et al. objects 31 and 51 so as to provide for communication of air to the humification medium). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER ROSE ORLANDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30. 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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. AMBER ROSE ORLANDO Primary Examiner Art Unit 1731 /AMBER R ORLANDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 31, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12709557
Highly Configurable Adaptable Mobile Deionization Trailer
4y 0m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12678730
MIXED GAS SEPARATION METHOD AND MIXED GAS SEPARATION DEVICE
3y 0m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12662403
PHOTOSWITCHABLE GUANIDINIUM COMPOUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF OXYANIONS FROM LIQUID SOLUTIONS
3y 11m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12661612
CARBON DIOXIDE RECOVERY SYSTEM
3y 2m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12584201
ITEM MADE OF PRECIOUS CERMET
3y 9m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+28.7%)
2y 11m (~1y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 671 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