Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/694,178

SMART CANE ASSEMBLY

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Mar 14, 2022
Examiner
SNIEZEK, ANDREW L
Art Unit
2693
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Hendrix Jennifer
OA Round
6 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1030 granted / 1213 resolved
+22.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
1241
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§102
35.1%
-4.9% vs TC avg
§112
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1213 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, lines 20-21 set forth to blend data from “both” the first, second and third sensors. This language is not grammatically correct since the word “both” refers to only two of the sensors and not all three of the sensors. It appears that the word “both” should be deleted to correct this issue. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claim 1 as now amended includes a “third orientation sensor” which is used to obtain data that is blended with data from both a first orientation sensor and a second orientation sensor used to produce location set as set forth is not supported by the original disclosure, thereby constituting new matter which must be cancelled. It is noted that the original disclosure only supports forming data from two orientation sensors (110a and 110b) that are blended together, (paragraph [0031] of the specification. The use of the data obtained from these two sensors along with a third orientation sensor is not supported by the written disclosure. The limitations of dependent claims 2-3 and 6 inherit the language of claim 1. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the use of three separate orientation sensors as now set forth in amended claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It appears that figure 2 mislabels element 109 as “orientation sensors” and should be change to just - - sensor - - to be consistent with the written specification, paragraph [0031], “Headset 107 includes sensors 109 which may be headphones configured to play the audible sound.” This sensor is therefore not an orientation sensor but instead a sensor used to play audible sound. No new matter should be entered. 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. 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. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-3 and 6 are allowed over the art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The teachings of the prior art is discussed in the final office action mailed 12/20/24. These references as applied do not teach nor obviously suggest a smart cane assembly that additionally includes in combination the specifics of the camera as now amended along with the use of three orientation sensors in the manner as set forth in claim 1. The limitations of claims 2-3 and 6 depend upon those features of claim 1. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Concerning applicants’ remarks related to the drawing objections: applicant states that figure 2 depicts three orientation sensors (110a, 110b and 109) with 110a and 110b are sensors in the cane and the head set with the third sensor is shown associated with respect to audio playback depicted in figure 2 that is transmitted through smart phone 105. Examiner does not agree. Element 109 as disclosed (see paragraph [0031] of applicants written specification) specifically states that headset 107 includes sensors 109. These sensors are as disclosed headphones to play audio and not as applicant states and claims as being used as orientation sensors. Therefor there appears to be only two sensors, one sensor the headset and one sensor in the cane as specifically depicted in figure 1. Under applicants rational, the headset 107 contains two orientation sensors (110a and 109). There is no disclosure to support such a rational since it is clear that sensor 109 is used for playback of audible sound (paragraph [0031] of the written disclosure and not used as an “third orientation sensor” as claimed and argued. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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. /ANDREW SNIEZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 /A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 1/14/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 14, 2022
Application Filed
May 09, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 13, 2023
Response Filed
Nov 17, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
May 22, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
May 28, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 30, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 04, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 16, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Jun 20, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 29, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 28, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598415
AUDIO PROCESSING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598421
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND CONTROLLING METHOD OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582375
Modular Auscultation Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581235
NOISE REDUCTION SYSTEM USING FINITE IMPULSE RESPONSE FILTER THAT IS UPDATED BY CONFIGURATION OF MINIMUM PHASE FILTER FOR NOISE REDUCTION AND ASSOCIATED METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568326
MECHANISM FOR EXTERNAL MULTI-FUNCTIONAL CABLE RETENTION FOR A HEARING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+8.8%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1213 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