Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/229,626

RESPIRATORY MASK WITH GOOD SEALING AND COMFORT

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 05, 2025
Examiner
WOODWARD, VALERIE LYNN
Art Unit
3785
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Dcstar Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
632 granted / 887 resolved
+1.3% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
921
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.3%
-35.7% vs TC avg
§103
40.9%
+0.9% vs TC avg
§102
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 887 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Amendment This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on January 7, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 15 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-18 are presently pending in the application. Claim Objections Claim 6 objected to because of the following informality: the end of claim 6 is missing a period. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the rigid component" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that “the rigid component” is recited several times throughout claim 1 as well as dependent claim 2, even though applicant has deleted the antecedent basis for a rigid component at claim 1, line 6. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the joint part" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the face" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “[[and” in line 17 with no close to the open brackets. Thus, it is not expressly clear if the deletion ends after “and” or if it continues further into the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the rigid component" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that “the rigid component” is recited several times throughout claim 5, even though applicant has deleted the antecedent basis for a rigid component at claim 5, line 6. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the joint part" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the face" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the rigid component" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that “the rigid component” is recited several times throughout claim 9, even though applicant has deleted the antecedent basis for a rigid component at claim 9, line 6. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the face" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation " the joint part " in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the rigid component" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that “the rigid component” is recited several times throughout claim 1 as well as dependent claim 2, even though applicant has deleted the antecedent basis for a rigid component at claim 1, line 6. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the face" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites the limitation “the joint part" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-18 are rejected based on their dependency to rejected claims. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALERIE L WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 4:30 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, KENDRA CARTER can be reached at (571)272-9034. 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. /VALERIE L WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 05, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 20, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 05, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599740
ORAL APPLIANCE FOR USE WITH CPAP HEADGEAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582787
MASK OUTER FRAME UNIT, MASK UNIT, BAND-INCLUDING MASK UNIT AND MASK OUTER FRAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576221
Nozzle Arrangement
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576234
Systems and Methods for Generating Nitric Oxide
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558509
HEADGEAR WITH TENSION LIMIT DETECTION FEATURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+27.0%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 887 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