Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 06, 2026
Application No. 18/951,918

RETRACTABLE SCREEN SYSTEMS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Nov 19, 2024
Priority
Feb 24, 2020 — provisional 62/980,667 +4 more
Examiner
RAMSEY, JEREMY C
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Defender Screens International LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 3m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allowance Rate
515 granted / 981 resolved
-7.5% vs TC avg
Strong +47% interview lift
Without
With
+46.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1020
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 981 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION The following Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application filed 11/19/2024. Status of the claims: Claims 1-36 are hereby examined below. 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 1-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 12,180,786. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application requires all the limitations of claims 12 of the ‘786 patent except the limitation that the surface of the first end cap has a convex curved shape. The instant application however states that the first end cap transitions from a larger diameter at the inner end to a smaller diameter at the outer end. It would have been obvious that the shape between the larger diameter and smaller diameter could be convex for the purpose of providing a smooth and clean appearance. Claim 10 of the instant application requires all the limitations of claim 21 of the ‘786 patent using the words “axis” and axle” interchangeably as well as “inner position/outer position” and “first end/first outward end”. All of the limitations of claims 18 and 29 of the of the instant application are disclosed in claim 1 of the ‘786 patent and the only difference is that claim 1 includes a second end cap with the same associate structure as the first end cap and claim 29 includes an axle which is known in the art. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-36 would be allowable upon the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer as set forth above in this Office action. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY C RAMSEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3133. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 7:00-3:30. 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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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. /JEREMY C RAMSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3634 /ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 19, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12669012
WINDOW BLIND
3y 4m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12669011
ROLLING SHUTTER DOOR FENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12617267
Device for Regulating an Air Flow
3y 7m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12577831
Elongate Mounting Structure and Mounting Unit Comprising the Same for Mounting an Architectural Covering Between Opposing Mounting Surfaces
3y 1m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577784
AWNING APPARATUS
2y 12m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
52%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+46.8%)
3y 0m (~1y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 981 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