Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 12, 2026
Application No. 19/288,904

DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR HASP RETENTION SELF-STORAGE LOCK ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Aug 01, 2025
Priority
Mar 29, 2024 — provisional 63/571,568 +1 more
Examiner
BOSWELL, CHRISTOPHER J
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Janus International Group LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 7m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allowance Rate
778 granted / 1155 resolved
+7.4% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1174
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
§102
48.6%
+8.6% vs TC avg
§112
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1155 resolved cases

Office Action

§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. Claim 1 and 23 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 23 of copending Application No. 19/094,340 (reference application). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 23 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1, 8 and 23 of copending Application No. 19/288,904. In other words, 1, 8 and 23 of copending Application No. 19/094,340 fully encompasses the subject matter of claims 1 and 23 and therefore anticipates claims 1 and 23. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are allowable over the prior art of record because the teachings of the references taken as a whole do not teach or render obvious the combination set forth, including that of an operation assembly configured to operate the latch plate between the unlatched and latched positions, wherein the operation assembly includes a pivot key and a drive gear resiliently coupled with the pivot key to provide rotational force to the pivot key, the pivot key arranged for engagement with the latch plate to provide driving movement of the latch plate between the latched and unlatch positions under rotational pivoting of the pivot key; the retention control system including a sensor system including at least one pivot key sensor configured to sense positioning of the pivot key and at least one sensor configured to sense positioning of the drive gear. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to door lock assemblies: U.S. Patent Number 12,234,671 to Luebeck; U.S. Patent Number 12,183,142 to Roy et al.; U.S. Patent Number 12,123,222 to Schroeder et al.; U.S. Patent Number 11,536,054 to Chen; U.S. Patent Number 8,814,233 to Leska et al.; U.S. Patent Number 8,757,677 to Wintersteiger; U.S. Patent Number 7,021,684 to Orbeta et al.; U.S. Patent Number 6,758,076 to Asen; U.S. Patent Number 5,029,912 to Gotanda. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7054. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9-4; F 9-12. 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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at 571-272-7376. 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. /CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 CJB /cb/ July 29, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 01, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 31, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12698646
LOCK
2y 10m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12692727
COMPUTER SECURITY LOCKS AND SYSTEM THEREFOR
3y 7m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12692726
Anti-Theft Device
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12687045
LOCK FOR LOCKING MULTIPLE OBJECTS
2y 0m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12680337
EXTERNAL DOORKNOB LOCKING SHROUD
2y 11m to grant Granted Jul 14, 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
67%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+26.0%)
2y 8m (~1y 7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1155 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