Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 14, 2026
Application No. 35/527,041

Smart speaker

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 03, 2025
Examiner
PATYK, JANICE JULIA
Art Unit
2951
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Focal Jmlab
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
98%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 98% — above average
98%
Career Allowance Rate
1019 granted / 1041 resolved
+37.9% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+2.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 9m
Avg Prosecution
4 currently pending
Career history
1042
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§102
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§112
95.9%
+55.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1041 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
OFFICE ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Objection to the Specification The specification must include a description of each reproduction disclosure. Applicant has provided descriptive descriptions that are impermissible and unnecessary. The descriptions of the figures are not required to be written in any particular format, however, they must describe the views of the reproductions clearly and accurately. See Hague Rule 7(5)(a), 37 CFR 1.1024, MPEP 2920.04(a)II. Therefore, for proper view designations, the following descriptive language should be deleted as any description of the design in the specification, other than a brief description of the drawing, is generally not necessary, since as a general rule, the illustration in the drawing views is its own best description: [[ The characteristic elements of the design … rectangle without visible features (view 1.7). ]] The above statement should be deleted in the specification. If applicant elects to use the broken lines as suggested in the rejection below, the following statement should be added to the specification immediately preceding the claim to describe the broken lines on the reproductions (MPEP § 1503.02, subsection III): -- The broken lines in the reproductions illustrate portions of the smart speaker that form no part of the claimed design. -- Rejection – 35 U.S.C. § 112 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, 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 inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because the shape and appearance of the claimed design cannot be understood due to the following: All reproductions show the front surface as being protruding outwards with rounded curves, while 1.1 does not show any protrusions. Rather, 1.1 shows an in-set surface that is inconsistent with all other views, thereby making the exact shape inconsistent. Therefore, it is suggested that applicant correct the front surface of 1.1 for consistency with all other views. PNG media_image1.png 1090 1356 media_image1.png Greyscale 1.6 and 1.8 show bottom and rear surfaces that are not visible from the side and perspective views and solid line details of which the exact depth, surface delineations, and spatial configuration cannot be determined, rendering the design nonenabling and indefinite. It is suggested that applicant convert all of the circular details and two horizontal lines in 1.8 and all darkened surfaces and details within those surfaces in 1.6 to broken lines in order to avoid claiming the indefinite subject matter. See below annotations for clarification of the indefinite subject matter. PNG media_image2.png 893 1438 media_image2.png Greyscale Replacement Sheets 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. When preparing new drawings in compliance with the requirement therefor, care must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). This pertains to either: the addition to, or the removal of, any elements shown in the originally disclosed design. Failure to submit replacement correction sheets overcoming all of the deficiencies in the drawing disclosure set forth above, or an explanation why the drawing corrections or additional drawing views are not necessary will result in the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, being made FINAL in the next Office action. The claimed design is patentable over the references cited. However, a final determination of patentability will be made upon resolution of the above rejection(s). The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b). Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE PATYK whose telephone number is (571)272-7594. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 7:00am-3:00pm, EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wendy Arminio, can be reached on 571-270-0221. 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. /JANICE PATYK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2923
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 03, 2025
Application Filed
Aug 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1130024
Knife stand
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent D1124862
Capsule
1y 2m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent D1115460
UTENSIL REST
1y 8m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent D1115729
Loudspeaker part
1y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent D1107008
Loudspeaker
2y 0m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
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
98%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+2.5%)
1y 9m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1041 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