Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 29/875,561

SIGNAL AND GROUND CONDUCTOR INLAY

Final Rejection §112
Filed
May 06, 2023
Examiner
MAY, LEAH ELIZABETH
Art Unit
2971
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
100%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 100% — above average
100%
Career Allow Rate
182 granted / 183 resolved
+39.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+0.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
2 currently pending
Career history
185
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§102
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
§112
93.1%
+53.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 183 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
OFFICE ACTION – FINAL REJECTION 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 . Amendment The amendment filed on 06/09/2025 fails to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth in the previous Office Action, which is now made final. Objection to the Specification- Broken Line Statement The broken line description is objectionable because it does not clearly and accurately describe what the broken lines are illustrating in the drawings. Specifically, the use of the word “unclaimed” in the description of the portions of the article formed by the broken lines is objectionable because it misrepresents the nature of a design claim. The design is what is claimed, and everything outside of that pertains to portions of the article of manufacture or environment which are excluded from being part of the claimed design. The design is a unitary thing and all of its portions are material, thus there can be no “unclaimed” or “disclaimed” parts of the claimed design. See In re Blum 153 USPQ 177 (1967). Additionally, the broken lines appear to be describing the bounds of the claim. Therefore, for clarity, the following broken line description is suggested: The broken lines in the drawing are for the purpose of illustrating bounds of the claim and form no part of the claimed design. New Matter Objection The drawings are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 as introducing new matter not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the amended subject matter at the time the application was filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). Specifically, there are many areas that when being converted to broken lines had lines removed completely. (See below for exemplary areas.) To overcome this objection, applicant may submit new drawings with the above mentioned subject matter amended. Alternatively, applicant may attempt to demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended subject matter at the time of filing. Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 112(a) The claim is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the description requirement thereof since the drawings filed on 05/06/2023 introduce new matter not supported by the original disclosure. Because applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, the action is made final. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). PNG media_image1.png 654 757 media_image1.png Greyscale Specifically, there is no support in the original disclosure for the width of the design to be wider than the width of the design filed on 05/06/2025. To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim or the drawings may be amended to correspond to the original drawings. (See annotated drawing below.) PNG media_image2.png 688 786 media_image2.png Greyscale Specifically, there is no support in the original disclosure for the ends of the lines to be “capped” or end in solid lines. To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim or the drawings may be amended to correspond to the original drawings. (See annotated drawing below.) To overcome these rejections, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim or the drawings may be amended to correspond to the original drawings. CONCLUSION The claim stands finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for the reasons set forth above. The references cited but not applied are considered cumulative art related to the subject matter of the claimed design. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). Because the applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in the Office action, the action is made final. A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action and advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory periods will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. CONTACT INFORMATION Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEAH ELIZABETH MAY whose telephone number is (571)272-2654. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Susan Krakower can be reached on 571-272-4496. 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. /L.E.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 2917 /AMBER R STILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2913
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 06, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jun 09, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1119829
Seal for chemical mechanical polishing device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent D1117079
Electrical connector for lamp
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent D1105008
SWITCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104984
ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1103928
CONNECTOR PORTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
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
100%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+0.7%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 183 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month