Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/218,869

WIRELESSLY POWERED DECORATIVE SYSTEMS AND DEVICES

Non-Final OA §102§103§DP
Filed
May 27, 2025
Examiner
TRUONG, BAO Q
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Belgravia Wood Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
892 granted / 1068 resolved
+15.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
1086
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
41.0%
+1.0% vs TC avg
§102
43.4%
+3.4% vs TC avg
§112
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1068 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,266. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are anticipated thereby see table below: Application claims Patented claims Remarks 1 1 All limitations included; a decorative item anticipated as a wreath; 2 2 Identical 3 3 Identical 4 4 Identical 5 5 All limitations included 6 6 Identical 7 5 All limitations included 8 8 Identical 9 9 Identical 10 10 All limitations included 11 11 Identical 12 12 Identical 13 13 Identical 14 10 All limitations included 15 15 All limitations included; a decorative device anticipated as a tree toper 16 16 Identical 17 15 All limitations included 18 18 Identical 19 19 Identical 20 20 All limitations included Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neuman et al. [U.S. 7,973,486 B2]. Regarding claims 1, 15, 17 and 20, Neuman et al. discloses a wirelessly powered decorative system [a Christmas tree 10, see figure 1] comprising: a decorative item [EMF-switched decorative displays or housing 26]; a wirelessly powered decorative device [EMF-switched decorative display 14 or Circuit 30, see figures 1 or 3] in communication with the decorative item [26], the wirelessly powered decorative device [14 or 30] comprising a receiver [antenna 28] and a load [electrical display component 32]; a wireless power transmitter [light string 12 provides an in-place transmitting antenna, column 6 lines 53-56] configured to transmit power to the receiver [28] of the wirelessly powered decorative device [30]; and a microcontroller [46, figure 5], wherein the load [32] can be powered by power received by the receiver of the wirelessly powered decorative device from the wireless power transmitter [column 3 lines 50-55, column 4 lines 4-13]. Regarding claims 2 and 16, Neuman et al. discloses the load is an LED device and the LED device can be illuminated by power received by the receiver of the wirelessly powered decorative device from the wireless power transmitter (column 3 lines 50-55). Regarding claims 3 and 18, Neuman et al. discloses the microcontroller is configured to receive and process wireless data (microcontroller 46 executes its stored program, column 4 lines 56-65). Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiering et al. [U.S. 5,034,658]. Regarding claim 20, Hiering et al. discloses an artificial tree [figures 1a-1b] comprising: an ornament [figures 3-4]; a wirelessly powered decorative device [figure 1b] in communication with the ornament, the wirelessly powered decorative device comprising a receiver [an air-core coil 3] and a load [LED 1]; a wireless power transmitter [a high-frequency transmitter 7] configured to transmit power to the receiver of the wirelessly powered decorative device; and wherein the load can be powered by power received by the receiver of the wirelessly powered decorative device from the wireless power transmitter (figure 1a-1b, 2 and 3 ; title, abstract, column 1 lines 7-10; column 2 lines 7-13 and lines 40-48). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuman et al. [U.S. 7,973,486 B2] in view of Hiering et al. [U.S. 5,034,658] and Ault et al. [U.S. 5,118,196]. Regarding claims 4 and 19, Neuman et al. discloses the wireless power transmitter and the receiver (figures 1 and 5). However, Neuman et al. does not clearly show the one or more transmitting and receiving coils. Hiering et al. teaches a wirelessly power system having receiving coils [3] (figure 1b). Ault et al. teaches a wirelessly power system having transmitting coils [37] (figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine the transmitter and receiver of Neuman et al. with the transmitting coils as taught by Ault et al. and the receiving coils as taught by Hiering et al. for purpose of providing an advantageous way of transmitting and receiving power or data as wanted. Claim(s) 5-8 and 10, 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuman et al. [U.S. 7,973,486 B2] in view of OBriant-Teague [U.S. 2015/0016111 A1]. Regarding claims 5 and 10, Neuman et al. discloses a wirelessly powered decorative system item [see figure 1] comprising: a top [14a]; a wirelessly powered decorative device [14 or 30] in communication with the top [14a, figure 3], the wirelessly powered decorative device comprising a receiver [28] and a load [32]; a wireless power transmitter [light string 12 provides an in-place transmitting antenna, column 6 lines 53-56] configured to transmit power to the receiver [28] of the wirelessly powered decorative device [14 or 30]; and wherein the load [32] can be powered by power received by the receiver of the wirelessly powered decorative device from the wireless power transmitter [column 3 lines 50-55, column 4 lines 4-13]. However, Neuman et al. does not clearly disclose the garland strand. OBriant-Teague teaches a decorative system having illumination portion 102 being a garland (paragraph [0036]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine the decorative item of Neuman et al. with the garland as taught by OBriant-Teague for purpose of providing an advantageous way of illumination decoration. Regarding claim 6, Neuman et al. discloses the load is an LED device and the LED device can be illuminated by power received by the receiver of the wirelessly powered decorative device from the wireless power transmitter (column 3 lines 50-55). Regarding claims 7 and 14, Neuman et al. discloses the wirelessly powered decorative device further comprises a microcontroller [46] (figure 5). Regarding claim 8, Neuman et al. discloses the wirelessly powered decorative device receives a power signal and a data signal from the wireless power transmitter (microcontroller 46 executes its stored program, column 4 lines 56-65). Regarding claim 11, Neuman et al. discloses the decorative object is artificial tree (figure 1). Regarding claim 13, Neuman et al. discloses the decorative object is not connected to by a wire to a power source (figure 1). Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuman et al. [U.S. 7,973,486 B2] and OBriant-Teague [U.S. 2015/0016111 A1] in view of Hiering et al. [U.S. 5,034,658] and Ault et al. [U.S. 5,118,196]. Regarding claims 9 and 12, Neuman et al. and OBriant-Teague disclose the wireless power transmitter and the receiver (see figures 1 and 5 of Neuman et al.). However, Neuman et al. does not clearly show the one or more transmitting and receiving coils. Hiering et al. teaches a wirelessly power system having receiving coils [3] (figure 1b). Ault et al. teaches a wirelessly power system having transmitting coils [37] (figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine the transmitter and receiver of Neuman et al. with the transmitting coils as taught by Ault et al. and the receiving coils as taught by Hiering et al. for purpose of providing an advantageous way of transmitting and receiving power or data as wanted. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen U.S. 6,652,927 B1 discloses a tree topper as a star 46 (figure 1). Sanford U.S. 5,558,422 discloses a light string can be incorporated into decorative garland, a wreath, or a Christmas tree structure (figures 1 and 3). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO Q TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2383. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 3 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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571 272 5046. 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. BAO Q. TRUONG Primary Examiner Art Unit 2875 /BAO Q TRUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 27, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601457
HEAD LIGHT ASSEMBLY AND METHOD FOR ASSEMBLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599049
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE, INTEGRATED LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE, AND LIGHT-EMITTING MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576776
SCENE ILLUMINATION DETECTION FOR AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578087
Portable Movement Activated Lighting System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572055
MICROLENS ARRAY WITH BUILT-IN AIR GAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+13.3%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1068 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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