Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/228,335

Hard Hat with Fan

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jun 04, 2025
Examiner
ANNIS, KHALED
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
491 granted / 870 resolved
-13.6% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+50.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
894
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
§103
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 870 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . 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 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. DETAILED ACTION This is in response to Application filed on 6/4/2025 in which claims 1-20 were presented for examination. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/4/2025 was considered by the examiner. 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. 12,336,587. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming substantially similar subject matter of a hard hat having a fan, ducts system and power pack. Claim Objections Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “an end portion” change to –the end portion--. Appropriate correction is required. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable when a terminal disclosure is filed and approved, as set forth in this Office action. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: independent claims 1, 11 and 17 and the respective depending claims are allowed. The closest prior art is that to US 12,336,587 (to the same inventive entity). Terminal disclaimer requested will overcome any obviousness type double patenting issues this application had with the '587 patent. Therefore, the current application is found to be allowable. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered (See PTO-892) pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED ANNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-5 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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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. /KHALED ANNIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 04, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593886
Energy Absorbing Protective Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575633
ROTATING BODY FIXING MEANS FOR HELMET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569052
ARTICLE HOLDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569023
ADJUSTABLE HELMET LINER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566049
BODY ARMOR SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
56%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+50.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 870 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