Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 19, 2026
Application No. 18/950,304

HEAT PUMP WITH IMPROVED ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Nov 18, 2024
Priority
Mar 04, 2024 — RE 10-2024-0030685 +1 more
Examiner
NOUKETCHA, LIONEL W
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Awesome Lab Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allowance Rate
479 granted / 592 resolved
+20.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
614
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.6%
+1.6% vs TC avg
§102
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
§112
35.0%
-5.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 592 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim(s) 1-15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1 line 4, “to heat liquid” should read “to heat a liquid”. In claim 5, line 6, “allowing liquid to be introduced therein” should read “allowing the liquid to be introduced therein”. In claim 6, line 7, “thereby allowing liquid to be introduced” should read “thereby allowing the liquid to be introduced”. In claim 8, line 3, “a flow amount of liquid flowing inside the housing” should read “a flow amount of the liquid flowing inside the housing”. In claim 12, line 9, “to allow liquid to flow into and out of the housing body” should read “to allow the liquid to flow into and out of the housing body”. In claim 13, line 7, “to allow liquid to flow into and out of the housing body” should read “to allow the liquid to flow into and out of the housing body”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim(s) 2-15 is/are objected to for their dependency on an objected base claim. 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. Claim(s) 1-15 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 calls for the limitation “wherein a first polarity or a second polarity different from the first polarity is applied to each of the plurality of rotary bodies” (last paragraph); which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear as to how a limitation recited in an alternative is required to practice the other alternative. To clarify, the limitation requires only one of “a first polarity” and “a second polarity”. In the instance where the second polarity is selected, the limitation requires particularities of the first polarity (see “a second polarity different from the first polarity”). However, the first polarity and its particularities are not part of the claimed invention in the instance where the second polarity is selected. Accordingly, the scope of the limitation is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. Analogously; claim 2 requires both “the first polarity” and “the second polarity”. However, parent claim 1 requires only one of “the first polarity” and “the second polarity”. Thus, it is unclear what the scope of claim 2 is as it requires both limitations that were previously claimed in the alternative. Claim(s) 2-15 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim. Prior Art Rejection where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. The closest prior art of record, Young (KR 101750226 B1), discloses a heat pump with improved energy efficiency #100, the heat pump comprising a power unit #20 providing a rotational driving force for liquid circulation, and receiving power to heat a liquid (abstract); and a housing #10 defining a space therein to allow the power unit to be disposed therein, wherein the power unit comprises a motor #M; a shaft #21 connected to the motor to receive power; and a plurality of rotary bodies (#22 & #28) rotatably provided on the shaft to be spaced apart from each other (Fig. 1). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hyun (US 20080224550 A1), Porter (US 5179307 A), and Fradella (US 4520300 A). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 18, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12735185
GALLEY COOLER WITH LATENT HEAT RECOVERY
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12734860
MANIFOLD FLUID MODULE
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12723773
HEAT SOURCE UNIT AND AIR-CONDITIONING DEVICE
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12716642
REFRIGERATOR APPLIANCE AND METHOD FOR CODE READING
2y 6m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12709410
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONDITIONING A POWER SOURCE OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE
2y 3m to grant Granted Aug 18, 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
81%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+13.5%)
2y 5m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 592 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