Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 35/523,393

Steering column turn signal stalk

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 18, 2024
Examiner
HSU, JERRY SHIUAN-HUA
Art Unit
2961
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Nhance Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
96%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 96% — above average
96%
Career Allow Rate
683 granted / 709 resolved
+36.3% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+1.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
6 currently pending
Career history
715
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§102
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§112
88.7%
+48.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 709 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . DETAILED ACTION Reproductions The reproductions are objected to. The image quality of the drawing figures is poor. In some areas, such as in Fig. 1.6, the edges of the claimed design fade into the white background. Since the drawings are the claim in a design application, it is vitally important that the appearance of the drawings is of the best quality. MPEP 1503.02 and 37 CFR 1.152. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. (See 37 CFR 1.1026, and Rule 9 of the Common Regulations under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement.) The applicant must file replacement sheets with clearly illustrated surfaces and edges in all views. PNG media_image1.png 588 790 media_image1.png Greyscale Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the claimed figures, even if only one figure is being amended. Replacement sheets cancel all previous disclosures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as “Replacement Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the examiner does not accept the changes, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The corrected drawings must meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and not contain new matter (35 U.S.C. 132; 37 CFR 1.121). Specification Objection The specification is objected to for the following reason: Descriptions of the figures are not required to be written in any particular format, however they should describe the views of the drawing clearly and accurately. (MPEP 1503.01 §II) For accuracy, when multiple perspective views are shown, explaining exactly which direction the perspective views are showing, is helpful to distinguish them from one-another. Therefore, the figure descriptions should be amended to read, for example: --1.1 Top, front, left side perspective view 1.2 Back perspective view----1.8 Top, left side perspective view-- Since there is a single inventor, for clarity, the formal claim statement should be prefaced with the phrase “I claim”. For example: --I Claim: The ornamental design for a steering column turn signal stalk as shown and described.-- Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112 The claim is refused under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (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 applicant regards as the invention. The claimed invention is indefinite and non-enabled because the overall shape and configuration of the design cannot be understood with the drawings provided. The appearance of four circular indentations on the side of the turn signal stalk is unclear. Interior surfaces within each indentation, which are visible in Fig. 1.4, cannot be seen in Fig. 1.6. It is not clear how deep the interior structure is located within the body of the turn signal stalk, or how deep the indentations extend into the signal stalk. Because of this ambiguity, the exact appearance of the circular indentations cannot be determined without resorting to conjecture. The claim is indefinite and non-enabling. PNG media_image2.png 1138 952 media_image2.png Greyscale As a potential means of overcoming this portion of the rejection, the applicant may consider removing the indefinite and non-enabling indentations from the scope of the claim. A method of showing unclaimed surfaces on computer generated drawings, is to illustrate the unclaimed surfaces with extremely light, de-emphasized surface shading and encapsulate the unclaimed area with light, thin, black broken lines. Specification Suggestion Should the applicant amend the drawing disclosure to include broken lines, as suggested in the drawing rejection, then a broken line description is needed to explain the purpose of the broken lines associated with the claimed matter. (MPEP 1503.02, subsection III) The broken line statement may be placed after the figure descriptions and prior to the formal claim statement. For example: --The broken lines depicting a boundary around the de-emphasized elements, and the de-emphasized elements within, illustrate portions of the steering column turn signal stalk that form no part of the claimed design.-- Should the applicant amend the reproductions and/or specification, the amendment must meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). It must be apparent that the applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of original filing. When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132(a) and 37 CFR 1.121(f). Applicant may file amendments in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. If corrected drawings are submitted in response to the Office action, they must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d). Conclusion The claimed design is refused under 35 USC 112(a) and (b), with specification and reproduction objections as discussed. Discussion of the Merits of the Application All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below. Telephonic or in person interviews A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner). The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. Email Communication The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information. Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence The USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by: [Symbol font/0xB7] Online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System‐Web (EFS‐Web) (Registered eFilers only) https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply [Symbol font/0xB7] Mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313‐1450 [Symbol font/0xB7] Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571‐273‐8300) [Symbol font/0xB7] Hand‐carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-5363. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 830AM-5PM 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, Susan Krakower can be reached at 571-272-4496. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The references cited are art of record. Applicant may view and obtain copies of U.S. Patent references by visiting the following site and doing an online search. http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/status/private_pair/index.jsp. If you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JERRY SHIUAN-HUA HSU/Examiner, Art Unit 2917
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 18, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1113634
Inflatable head and neck protection device
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent D1108333
Sea scooter
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent D1107615
Remote control for smart automotive window film
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent D1104927
Storage container for recreational vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104928
Storage Container for Recreational Vehicle
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
96%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+1.0%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 709 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