Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 29/929,373

DOOR SHOCK ABSORBER

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Feb 21, 2024
Examiner
POTTENGER, SARA M
Art Unit
2934
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
98%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 9m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 98% — above average
98%
Career Allow Rate
47 granted / 48 resolved
+37.9% vs TC avg
Minimal -14% lift
Without
With
+-14.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 9m
Avg Prosecution
2 currently pending
Career history
50
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
5.6%
-34.4% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
68.2%
+28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 48 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 . Examiner’s Comment An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee. Authorization for this examiner's amendment was given in an interview with Evan Hastings on 01/14/2026. Telephone Restriction This application discloses the following embodiments: Embodiment 1 - Figs. 1-7 Embodiment 2 - Figs. 8-14 Multiple embodiments of a single inventive concept may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. See In re Rubinfield, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959). Embodiments that are patentably distinct from one another do not constitute a single inventive concept and thus may not be included in the same design application. See In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222 (Comm’r Pat. 1967). The change in shape create(s) patentably distinct designs. See In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222 (Comm’r Pat. 1967). Because of the differences identified, the embodiments of each Group are considered to either have overall appearances that are not basically the same, or, if they are basically the same, the differences are not minor and patentably indistinct or are not shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art. Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to one of the patentably distinct groups of designs. During a telephone discussion with Evan Hastings on 01/14/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the design(s) of Embodiment 1. Affirmation of this election should be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Embodiment 2 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for a nonelected design(s). Amendment to the Specification Figure descriptions 8-14 have ben canceled. The portion of the figure 1 description reading “a first embodiment of” has been canceled. Drawing Objection The drawings are objected to for the following reasons: When a portion of a view is enlarged for magnification purposes, the view and the enlarged view must each be labeled as separate views 37 CFR 1.84(h)(2). The drawings are objected to because FIG.1 illustrates an enlarged portion of an environmental/in use view, but the enlarged view is not labeled as a separate view. See below. PNG media_image1.png 584 410 media_image1.png Greyscale Replacement drawings sheets that label the enlargement in figure 1 as a separate view, as well as an amended specification that includes a figure description for the separate enlarged view is required. Alternatively, Fig. 1 could be canceled and the remaining figures could be renumbered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as amended. If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as "Annotated Sheet") including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d) . If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. Figure 1 illustrates the environmental structures (door, door frame, and other room elements) in solid claim lines. See Fig. 1 above. Replacement drawing sheets that illustrate the environmental structures in unclaimed broken lines are required. See MPEP 1503.2. Views must not be connected by projection lines. See 37 CFR 1.84 (h). Figure 1 illustrates an enlarged partial view connected by projection lines to an environmental view. See Fig. 1 above. Replacement drawing sheets that remove the projection lines from figure 1. Specification Objections The inclusion of a statement following the claim is not permissible. See 37 CFR 1.154. Following the figure descriptions this statement: “The claimed ornamental design is shown embodied on a door shock absorber that may be used, for example, to absorb energy from momentum of a closing door. In an illustrative example, the claimed ornamental design may operate as shock absorber for a sliding door. The sliding door may be closed from either the inside or the outside. The illustrative scenario is provided for reference of an illustrative use for a door shock absorber embodying the new design” This statement is a brief description of the nature and intended use of the article in which the design is embodied. The Examiner recommends moving this statement to the preamble preceding the figure descriptions or canceling it. Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. §112 (a)&(b) The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)&(b), as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim is unclear and non-enabling due to the following: The specification is inconsistent with the illustrations. The specification states that “The illustrative use case shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 8 are provided for reference and form no part of the claimed design.” However, several portions of the illustrative use case shown in FIG. 1 are drawn in solid claim line, including environmental structures as presented in the drawing objections above. The examiner recommends canceling this statement and submitting replacement drawing sheets that illustrate the environmental structures in unclaimed broken lines. The specification states “Where no boundary line is shown between solid lines, this disclosure encompasses at least a corresponding embodiment in which a boundary line connects the ends of solid lines to demarcate a boundary between a claimed portion and an unclaimed portion.” While this statement is directed to the projection lines connecting the enlarged partial view and the “illustrative use scenario” of Fig. 1, from which the enlargement is taken, these elements were objected to in the Drawing Objection above and are required to be amended. The Examiner recommends canceling the statement for clarity of the record. The claim is indefinite and non-enabling due to the reference to indeterminate length in the specification. The specification states that that the “Parallel wavy lines in FIGS. 2-3 and 9-10 indicate indefinite length. This disclosure encompasses at least corresponding embodiment(s) in which the indefinite length indicia are removed and the length is as depicted. Statements which describe or suggest other embodiments of the claimed design which are not illustrated in the drawing disclosure, except one that is a mirror image of that shown or has a shape and appearance that would be evident from the one shown, are not permitted in the specification of an issued design patent. MPEP 1503.02 The applicant should cancel this statement. In its place, the following should be added, which provides a definite meaning to the break lines: “The drawings contain symbolic break lines in Fig. XXX. Any portion between the break lines forms no part of the claimed design. “The specification states “Parallel wavy lines in FIGS. 2-3 and 9-10 indicate indefinite length. This disclosure encompasses at least corresponding embodiment(s) in which the indefinite length indicia are removed and the length is as depicted.” The parallel wavy break lines are illustrated on unclaimed portions of the claim. The examiner recommends canceling the statement and removing the parallel wavy break lines from the drawings. IV. Fig. 5 is cause for indefiniteness and non-enablement. The cross section hatching is claimed, and potentially could be interpreted as claiming the interior dimensions of the shock absorber. Furthermore, the small top opening is not shown consistently in Fig. 5 The Examiner suggests that Fig. 5 be canceled and the remaining figures renumbered. Conclusion The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)&(b). Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA M POTTENGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1871. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm. 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, Lakiya Rogers can be reached at (571) 270-7145. 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. /S.M.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2934 /BRETT MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2934
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 21, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1105504
STAIR TREAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1105505
ACOUSTIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1105509
Landscape Edging
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104833
NECKLACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104854
BUCKLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
98%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (-14.3%)
1y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 48 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