Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/987,386

COMPRESSION APPARATUSES, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SCREENING MATERIALS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Dec 19, 2024
Priority
May 09, 2023 — provisional 63/464,982 +3 more
Examiner
MATTHEWS, TERRELL HOWARD
Art Unit
3653
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Derrick Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
883 granted / 1053 resolved
+31.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1079
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
87.6%
+47.6% vs TC avg
§102
3.8%
-36.2% vs TC avg
§112
3.8%
-36.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1053 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 1-2, 9-10, 15 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-13, 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11890647 and further in view of claims 2, 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12208419. Although the claims at issue are not identical to the reference claims, they are not patentably distinct therefrom for the following reasons: Claims 1 and 15 are not patentably distinct from Claims 12, 15-17 of US11890647. Claim 12 of the aforementioned patent discloses a screen assembly with a support member having mounting apertures along the first side, each aperture including a compression surface on its inner side producing a resultant force with horizontal inward and vertical-downward components, and a screening surface on top. Furthermore, Claim 15 adds that the support member comprises a plurality of support elements jointed together formed from plastic or synthetic material, while Claim 16 adds that the mounting apertures do not extend through the entire height of the support member such that compression piston end faces are received in the apertures (recessed aperture configuration). Additionally, Claim 17 adds a binder bar coupled to the support elements forming the first side with the mounting apertures formed therein. It should further be noted that the use of injection molding and the selection of plastic for the screening surface are obvious variants that would have been obvious and within the level of sophistication of one of ordinary skill in the art, and furthermore the variants would have yielded predictable results. Claim 2 is not patentably distinct from Claim 17 of US11890647, which recites a binder bar coupled to the plurality of support elements and forming the first side of the support member with the mounting apertures formed therein. Claim 9 and 20 are not patentably distinct from Claim 12 of 11890647, which recites that the resultant compressive force includes a first component oriented horizontally toward the centerline and a second component oriented vertically downward. Claim 10 is not patentably distinct from Claim 13 of US11890647 which recites first and second compression surfaces located on opposite sides of the alignment slot, and Claim 25 of US12208419 which recites the same paired surface geometry. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-8, 11-14, 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Terminal Disclaimer A terminal disclaimer may be effective to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection over a reference patent (37 CFR 1.321(b) and (c)). 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. 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/PatentForms. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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/TerminalDisclaimer. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRELL HOWARD MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-5929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST. 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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571)272-7805. 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. /TERRELL H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 19, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12669448
X-RAY INSPECTION APPARATUS
1y 4m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12645270
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR EFFICIENT ESTIMATION OF THE ENERGY DISSIPATION OF PROCESSOR BASED SYSTEMS
1y 7m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12630482
Apparatus, System and Method for Automated Food Waste Processing
3y 5m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12623252
SIEVE AND FRAME WITH IMPROVED CONNECTABILITY
1y 10m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12617620
LOAD CARRYING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 11m to grant Granted May 05, 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
84%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+11.1%)
2y 1m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1053 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