Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 17/814,343

HANDLE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jul 22, 2022
Examiner
VU, STEPHEN A
Art Unit
3654
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
1000245527 Ontario Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allowance Rate
914 granted / 1118 resolved
+29.8% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
1135
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§102
36.3%
-3.7% vs TC avg
§112
25.1%
-14.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1118 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gringer et al (US 2007/0295768). As to claim 1, Gringer et al discloses an apparatus (110,150) configured to be attached to a paint can (24), as illustrated in Figures 1-20, the apparatus comprising an elongated body (150) to engage with a hand of a user; a connection mechanism (110) disposed on a first end of the elongated body, wherein the connection mechanism is to engage an underside of a rim of the paint can (see Figures 12-15 and paragraph [0070]); and a base (154) disposed on a second end of the elongated body, wherein the base is to apply a force against a side of the paint can (two upwardly extending projections (156, 158), which cooperate with the bottom rim (125) of a standard, cylindrical paint container (124) – see paragraph [0066]). With claim 2, the connection mechanism includes a lip (170,171) to mate with a trough under the rim of the paint can. With claim 3, the lip is curved to match a curvature of the rim of the paint can. With claim 4, the elongated body includes a grip (151) to engage with the hand of the user (see paragraph [0070]). With claim 5, a textured area (a soft, flexible material that is preferably slip-resistant, easy and comfortable to grip, such as a thermoplastic elastomer (i.e., Santoprene.RTM.) or rubber – see paragraph [0070]) proximate to the first end to provide traction for a thumb of the hand. With claim 7, a brush attachment (138) disposed proximate to the first end, wherein the brush attachment is to hold a paint brush (see paragraph [0075]). With claim 8, the brush attachment is a magnet to couple with a ferromagnetic material of the paint brush (see paragraph [0075]). With claim 9, the brush attachment is a fastener to couple with a complementary fastener disposed on the paint brush (see paragraph [0075]). As to claim 11, Gringer et al discloses a method of using a paint can (20) while painting (see Abstract), the method comprising engaging a rim of the paint can with a connection mechanism (110) disposed on a first end of an elongated body (see Figures 12-15 and paragraph [0070]); applying a force against a side of the paint can with a base (154) (two upwardly extending projections (156, 158), which cooperate with the bottom rim (125) of a standard, cylindrical paint container (124) – see paragraph [0066]), wherein the base disposed at a second end of the elongated body, wherein the connection mechanism and the base secure the elongated body to the paint can; and lifting the paint can by holding the elongated body. With claim 12, engaging the rim comprises mating a lip (170,171) of the connection mechanism with a trough under the rim of the paint can. With claim 13, mating the lip comprises applying an upward force to the connection mechanism against the paint can. With claim 14, holding the elongated body comprises holding a grip (151) disposed on the elongated body. With claim 16, holding a paint brush with a brush attachment (138) disposed proximate to the first end (see paragraph [0075]). With claim 17, holding the paint brush comprises magnetically coupling a magnet to a ferromagnetic material of the paint brush (see paragraph [0075]). With claim 20, disengaging the connection mechanism from the rim by urging the connection mechanism toward a center of the paint can. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gringer et al (US 2007/0295768) in view of Svehaug (US 6,135,310). Gringer et al discloses the brush attachment is a magnet to couple with a ferromagnetic material of the paint brush (see paragraph [0075]). Svehaug teaches “a strip of hook or loop fastening material 30 is secured on either the front wall 71 or rear wall 72 of auxiliary handle 24” (see col. 4, lines 32-34) for engaging with the hook and loop fastener (32) on the paint brush (26) (see Figures 1-2). The substitution of one known element (a strip of hook and loop fastener to be complementary with the hook and loop fastener on a paint brush in Svehaug) for another (magnet in Gringer et al) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the hook and loop fastener shown in Svehaug would have yielded predictable results, namely, a positive interlocking of each opposing pair of paint brush to the apparatus in Gringer et al to temporarily hold a paint brush, so that the user can later remove the paint brush for usage. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because applicant has amended the independent claims to change the scope of the claim limitations. Therefore, an updated search and further consideration were conducted to review the merits of the amended claims. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHEN VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1961. 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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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. STEPHEN VU Primary Examiner Art Unit 3654 /STEPHEN A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 22, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 21, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 03, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 03, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 13, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 13, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12605851
ROBOT END EFFECTOR
4y 1m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12610783
SUBSTRATE TRANSFER APPARATUS, STATE DETERMINATION METHOD, AND COMPUTER STORAGE MEDIUM
4y 1m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12600026
MAGNETIC CLEANING DEVICE
3y 9m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598955
SUBSTRATE TRANSFER DEVICE AND SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS HAVING THE SAME
4y 0m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594678
Device and Method for Gripping an Object
3y 10m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+15.3%)
2y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1118 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