Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/948,887

DAMPER GEL TANK AND VOICE COIL MOTOR

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 15, 2024
Priority
Nov 16, 2023 — CN 2023230969945
Examiner
ADDY, THJUAN KNOWLIN
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Lanto Electronic Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allowance Rate
990 granted / 1108 resolved
+29.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
1120
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.7%
-29.3% vs TC avg
§103
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
§102
44.0%
+4.0% vs TC avg
§112
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1108 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses a phrase which can be implied. For instance, line 1 recites “A damper gel tank is provided …”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “acceptable range”, however there is no specific definition that is being applied in the specification to mean “acceptable range.” That will make “acceptable range”, “lower limit position of an acceptable range”, and “upper limit position of an acceptable range” indefinite. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mankame (US Patent Application, Pub. No.: US 2021/0233368) teaches a haptic device with vibration motor and seat assembling. Mo et al. (US Patent Application, Pub. No.: US 2023/0412060) teach a base with integrated coils and the motor with the same. Rucker et al. (US Patent 10,492,010) teach damping in contact hearing systems. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THJUAN KNOWLIN ADDY whose telephone number is (571)272-7486. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 5:00PM Mon-Fri. 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at (571) 272-7488. 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. /THJUAN K ADDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 15, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12739543
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MOUNTING DEVICES TO A FLAT SCREEN VIDEO MONITOR
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12707189
Display Device
1y 10m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12694341
CONTEXTUAL AWARENESS SUBSYSTEM FOR AUGMENTED HEARING
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12688875
COMMUNICATION APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD FOR COMMUNICATION APPARATUS, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12689862
HEARING AID CONTROL METHOD, AND HEARING AID DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 2m to grant Granted Jul 21, 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
89%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+6.3%)
2y 5m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1108 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