Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 19/276,546

SELF-ADAPTIVE FABRIC FOR SPACE APPLICATIONS

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Jul 22, 2025
Priority
Apr 03, 2024 — continuation of 12/392,059
Examiner
MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
BLUE ORIGIN, LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 4m
Est. Remaining
56%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allowance Rate
889 granted / 1336 resolved
-3.5% vs TC avg
Minimal -11% lift
Without
With
+-11.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
1354
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
70.6%
+30.6% vs TC avg
§102
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
§112
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1336 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
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 21-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,392,059. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims fully disclose/anticipate the claims of the instant application. The species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. An obviousness analysis is not required for this type of nonstatutory double patenting rejection [MPEP 804; “Anticipation analysis”]. Specific mapping and correlation of instant claims to the anticipatory patented claims are listed in the table below. Instant claims Patented claims and any needed additional analysis 21 1, slight change in language present in instant claim 21; the “increase” of diameter claimed in patented claim 1 discloses/anticipates the “change” of diameter in instant claim 21. All other limitations of instant claim 21 are plainly and explicitly disclosed in patented claim 1. 22 Verbatim to patented claim 5. 23 Verbatim to patented claim 6. 24 Verbatim to patented claim 8. 25 Disclosed in patented claim 1. 26 Verbatim to patented claim 9. 27 Disclosed in patented claim 2. 28 Verbatim to patented claim 3. 29 Verbatim to patented claim 4. 30 Verbatim to patented claim 7. 31 Verbatim to patented claim 10. 32 Verbatim to patented claim 11. 33 Verbatim to patented claim 12. 34 Verbatim to patented claim 13. 35 Verbatim to patented claim 14. 36 15, slight change in language present in instant claim 36; the “increase” of diameter claimed in patented claim 15 discloses/anticipates the “change” of diameter in instant claim 36. All other limitations of instant claim 36 are plainly and explicitly disclosed in patented claim 15. 37 Disclosed in patented claims 15 and 16. 38 Verbatim to patented claim 16. 39 Verbatim to patented claim 17. 40 Verbatim to patented claim 18. 41 Verbatim to patented claim 19. 42 Verbatim to patented claim 20. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Various fabric and fabric production methods are attached to establish the general state of the prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR whose telephone number is (571)272-4991. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 730-1730. 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. /ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 22, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT
Apr 22, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12630950
WOVEN FABRIC AND SLIDING MATERIAL
2y 2m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12624926
VEST COMPRISING ARMOR, FLOTATION AND CAMOUFLAGE ELEMENTS
1y 7m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12618178
WEAVING MACHINE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PILE FABRICS WITH KNOTTED PILE YARNS
1y 3m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12612717
WOOL-LIKE FABRIC AND WEAVING METHOD THEREOF
1y 0m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12588725
Visor Board For Use With Headgear Brim
2y 7m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
66%
Grant Probability
56%
With Interview (-11.0%)
2y 3m (~1y 4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1336 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