Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 35/524,664

Air conditioner

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Apr 11, 2024
Examiner
VUJCIC, NATASHA
Art Unit
2933
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
LG Electronics Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 9m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
348 granted / 382 resolved
+31.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 9m
Avg Prosecution
9 currently pending
Career history
391
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§102
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§112
77.4%
+37.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 382 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . DETAILED OFFICE ACTION Claim Rejection – Obvious Type Double Patenting The claim is provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of the obviousness-type double patenting of the claim of copending Applications 35/526,511. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the different thickness of the interior walls in the instant application, is an obvious modification to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention. Furthermore, the appearance of the internal indentations seen in the instant application are inconsequential to the overall appearance of the claimed design, and alone do not create a patentable distinction. 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. See 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);and, 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b). A registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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. Notes on Correspondence Please note that, at this time, the examiner is prohibited from initiating or returning international telephone calls. If applicant wishes to communicate by telephone, the examiner may be reached by email to arrange a time for a telephone interview: natasha.vujcic@uspto.gov. The merits of the application may not be discussed via email unless an appropriate authorization for email communication is placed in the U.S. application file at the USPTO. For those applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via Internet communications, e.g., email or video conferencing tools, the following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file." Please see MPEP 502.03 II (Article 5) for more details. Discussion of the Merits of the Case A Power of Attorney (POA), filed with the USPTO in the specific case, is required whether or not attorney for the applicant has POA authority in a foreign IP office. Examiner may not discuss the merits or specifics of a case without a proper POA on file. https://www.usDto.aov/web/forms/sb0080.Ddf The POA form submitted in the international phase is not effective for purposes of the US. The proper form is available at: https://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/sb0080.pdf When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence When responding to an official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including refusals, Ex Parte Quayle, Notice of Allowances, or Notice of Abandonments, please note the following: The USPTO transacts business in writing. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by: Online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only) https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450 Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300) Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions Conclusion In conclusion, the claim stands Rejected under Obvious Type Double Patenting. Applicant is reminded that any reply to this Refusal must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA VUJCIC whose telephone number is (571)272-6403. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7-5:30 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, Richard Kearney can be reached on 571-272-8312. 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 http://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. /NATASHA VUJCIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2933 March 2, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 11, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1119028
Outdoor lighting fixture
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent D1106549
LIGHT
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent D1105555
Grow light
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1105550
Light Fixture
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1105556
Lighting Apparatus with Electrical Junction Box
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
91%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+4.6%)
1y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 382 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