Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/254,658

MULTI-PURPOSE FLASHLIGHT

Non-Final OA §101§DP
Filed
Jun 30, 2025
Examiner
TON, ANABEL
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Promier Products Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
1086 granted / 1243 resolved
+19.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
1253
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
30.2%
-9.8% vs TC avg
§102
42.8%
+2.8% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1243 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §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 A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-7 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-7 and 16-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12/352,397. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. Claims 1-7 of the instant invention recite exactly the same limitations of that of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No 12/352,397 Claims 16-20 of the instant invention recite exactly the same limitations as that of claims 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12/352,397 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 8-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12/254,658. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons. Regarding claim 8, claim 8 of the 12/254,658 patent discloses the same subject matter as that of the instant invention. Regarding claims 9-15 of the instant invention, claims 9-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12/352,397 recites exactly the same subject matter. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANABEL TON whose telephone number is (571)272-2382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00pm -6:00pm (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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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. /ANABEL TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 30, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595904
MODULAR TRACK LIGHTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597570
LIGHT-EMITTING KEYBOARD AND BACKLIGHT MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590690
LIGHTING FIXTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590694
Connecting Assembly for Decorative Light
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590683
SIMULATED FLAME LAMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
87%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+2.6%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1243 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