Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/869,626

Heated Hand Grip

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 20, 2022
Examiner
TEIXEIRA MOFFAT, JONATHAN CHARLES
Art Unit
3700
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
221 granted / 311 resolved
+1.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
562 currently pending
Career history
873
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
§103
45.1%
+5.1% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 311 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 6-7, 12-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites the limitation "a grip section of the bow" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "a handle section of the fishing rod" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites the limitation "a grip section of the bow" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites the limitation "a handle section of the fishing rod" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation "a grip section of the bow" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 recites the limitation "a handle section of the fishing rod" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gill et al. (US 8294066 B2). Regarding claim 1, Gill et al. disclose a heated hand grip (210, Fig. 2) comprising: a flexible substrate (layer 206, layer 208, Fig. 3) ; a malleable heating element (strings 250, 260, Fig. 3); a power port (230, Fig. 2); the flexible substrate comprising a conductive layer (208, “Outer layer 208 may be composed of any number of materials, including but not limited to silicone, rubber or a thermoplastic material, or combinations thereof. However, it should be understood that the outer layer 208 should be at least somewhat thermally conductive since heat should pass up through outer layer 208 to the user's hands.”, Col. 5, lines 13-21) and an insulating layer (layer 206 “Inner core 206 is substantially cylindrical and composed of a non-electrically conductive or insulating material such as thermoplastic material, silicone, or rubber.”, Col. 4, lines 45-50); the conductive layer (208) being superimposed onto the insulating layer (206) as shown in Fig. 3 below; the malleable heating element (250, 260, Figs. 2 and 3) being integrated in between the conductive layer (208) and the insulating layer (206) shown in Fig. 3; the power port (23) being externally connected onto the flexible substrate (208, 206), see Fig. 2; and the malleable heating element (250, 260) being electrically connected to the power port (230) via. positive (242) and negative (244) lead wires as shown in Fig. 2. PNG media_image1.png 560 842 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 534 788 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 5, Gill et al. disclose the heated hand grip as claimed in claim 1 comprising: an adhesive layer (The inner core 206 is attached to the shaft 220 by any suitable means known in the art, for example, using double-sided adhesive tape or a spray or liquid adhesive may also be used.”, Col. 4, lines 55-58); the adhesive layer being superimposed onto the insulating layer to attached the insulating layer to the shaft (220); and the adhesive layer and the conductive layer (208) being oppositely positioned of each other about the insulating layer (206) as shown in Fig. 3. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 2-3, 8-9, 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill et al. (US 8294066 B2) in view of Nonoyama et al. (US 9758187 B2). Regarding claims 2 and 8, Gill et al. disclose the heated hand grip as claimed in claim 1 except comprising: a heat-conductive layer; and the heat-conductive layer and the insulating layer being oppositely positioned of each other about the conductive layer. Nonoyama et al. discloses a heated hand grip (steering wheel, Fig. 9) wherein a heating element (31, Fig. 9) is sandwiched between a cover layer (19) and insulated layer 13 configured to cover the core 2, Fig. 9), wherein the cover layer (19, Fig. 9) comprises a cover main body (20) and a heat-conductive layer (soft foamed material layer 21). Since the cover layer (19) of Nonoyama et al. is an outer layer equivalent to the outer layer (208) of Gill et al. wherein the user would grip with their hand, the different is that Nonoyama et al. use a two-layer configuration wherein a foam is added for comfort, both layers being conductive to bring heat from the heating element (31) to the user’s hand. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the heated hand grip of Gill et al. to have a heat-conductive layer as taught by Nonoyama et al. for the purpose of providing comfort to the user while gripping the heated hand drip. The heated conductive layer as shown in figure 9 would meet the required arrangement as modified. PNG media_image3.png 740 632 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claims 3, 9 and 14-15 Gill et al. modified disclose the heated hand grip as claimed in claim 2, and as shown in Fig. 9 of Nonoyama et al. the heat-conductive layer (21) is superimposed onto the conductive layer (20) which is modified into Gill et al. as discussed above in claim 2. Regarding claims 11 and 14, Gill et al modified disclose the heated hand grip as claimed in claim 8 comprising: an adhesive layer (The inner core 206 is attached to the shaft 220 by any suitable means known in the art, for example, using double-sided adhesive tape or a spray or liquid adhesive may also be used.”, Col. 4, lines 55-58); the adhesive layer being superimposed onto the insulating layer to attached the insulating layer to the shaft (220); and the adhesive layer and the conductive layer (208) being oppositely positioned of each other about the insulating layer (206) as shown in Fig. 3, the adhesive layer and the conductive layer (208) being oppositely positioned of each other about the insulating layer (206). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill et al. (US 8294066 B2) in view of Smith et al. (US 5585026 A) cited on IDS dated 8 Nov. 2022. Regarding claim 6, Gill et al. disclose the heated hand grip as claimed in claim 5 comprising: the flexible substrate (206, 208) comprising a left section, a middle section, and a right section; the left section and the right section being oppositely positioned of each other about the middle section (Figs. 2, 3); the left section being adjacently connected to the middle section (Figs. 2, 3); the right section being adjacently connected to the middle section (Figs. 2, 3); and the malleable heating element (250, 250) being integrated into the left section, the middle section, and the right section (Figs. 2, 3). Gill et al does not disclose wherein the adhesive layer is adhered onto a grip section of the bow. However, the bow has insufficient antecedent as disclosed above in the 112(b) rejection above. Smith et al. disclose a heated grip for a bow (abstract) wherein a heated tape (12, Fig. 5) is used for heating the grip (Col. 4, lines 20-36). Since bows having heated grips was convention at the time of filing, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the heated hand grip of Gill et al. instead of the heat tape, a simple substitution for the purpose of provide heat to the user while operation the bow during cold conditions. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill et al. (US 8294066 B2) in view of Childs et al. (US 5655328 A) cited on IDS dated 20 Jul. 2022. Regarding claim 7, Gill et al. disclose the heated hand grip as claimed in claim 5 comprising: the flexible substrate comprising a rectangular section (cut away view in Fig. 3); and the malleable heating element (250, 260) being integrated into the rectangular section. Gill does not show wherein the adhesive layer is adhered onto a handle section of the fishing rod. However, the fishing rod has insufficient antecedent as disclosed above in the 112(b) rejection above. Childs et al. disclose a fishing rod that has a rod handle heated grip assembly (22, Fig. 5). Since fishing rods having heated grips was convention at the time of filing, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the heated hand grip of Gill et al. instead of the rod handle heated grip assembly, a simple substitution for the purpose of provide heat to the user while operation the fishing rod during cold conditions. Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill et al. (US 8294066 B2) in view of Nonoyama et al. (US 9758187 B2) and in view of Smith et al. (US 5585026 A). Regarding claim 12 and 17, Gill et al. modified disclose the heated hand grip as claimed in claim 11 comprising: the flexible substrate (206, 208) comprising a left section, a middle section, and a right section; the left section and the right section being oppositely positioned of each other about the middle section (Figs. 2, 3); the left section being adjacently connected to the middle section (Figs. 2, 3); the right section being adjacently connected to the middle section (Figs. 2, 3); and the malleable heating element (250, 250) being integrated into the left section, the middle section, and the right section (Figs. 2, 3). Gill et al does not disclose wherein the adhesive layer is adhered onto a grip section of the bow. However, the bow has insufficient antecedent as disclosed above in the 112(b) rejection above. Smith et al. disclose a heated grip for a bow (abstract) wherein a heated tape (12, Fig. 5) is used for heating the grip (Col. 4, lines 20-36). Since bows having heated grips was convention at the time of filing, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the heated hand grip of Gill et al. instead of the heat tape, a simple substitution for the purpose of provide heat to the user while operation the bow during cold conditions. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill et al. (US 8294066 B2) in view of Nonoyama et al. (US 9758187 B2) in view of Smith et al. (US 5585026 A) and in view of Childs et al. (US 5655328 A) cited on IDS dated 20 Jul. 2022. Regarding claims 13 and 18, Gill et al. disclose the heated hand grip as claimed in claim 11 comprising: the flexible substrate comprising a rectangular section (cut away view in Fig. 3); and the malleable heating element (250, 260) being integrated into the rectangular section. Gill does not show wherein the adhesive layer is adhered onto a handle section of the fishing rod. However, the fishing rod has insufficient antecedent as disclosed above in the 112(b) rejection above. Childs et al. disclose a fishing rod that has a rod handle heated grip assembly (22, Fig. 5). Since fishing rods having heated grips was convention at the time of filing, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the heated hand grip of Gill et al. instead of the rod handle heated grip assembly, a simple substitution for the purpose of provide heat to the user while operation the fishing rod during cold conditions. Claims 4, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill et al. (US 8294066 B2) in view of Nonoyama et al. (US 9758187 B2) and in view of Grinstead et al. (US 20060219690 A1). In regard to claims 4, 10 and 16 Gill et al. modified discloses the heated hand grip as claimed in claims 2, 8 and 14 except wherein the heat-conductive layer is removed mounted to the conductive layer. Grinstead et al. discloses a heating apparatus where in a cover (402, Fig. 4) is removed mounted to a heating element (electrically conductive film 206, Fig. 4, ¶0036). Since covers for electric heating devices was convention at the time of filing and covers conventionally being used as protection for a heating circuit, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the heated hand grip to have a removed mounted heat-conductive layer (layer that makes direct contact with the hand) as taught by Grinstead et al. for the purpose of providing a layer of protect to the heated hand grips as well as allows the user to wash / clean the heat conductive layer when the grip becomes dirty. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES F SIMS III whose telephone number is (571)270-7496. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:30 EST M-F. 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, Landrum F Edward can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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. /JAMES F SIMS III/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 20, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12350762
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR HEIGHT CONTROL IN LASER METAL DEPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Patent 12349847
MOP HEAD AND SELF-WRINGING MOP APPARATUS AND ASSEMBLY AND METHOD OF WRINGING A MOP
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Patent 12352306
Workpiece Support For A Thermal Processing System
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Patent 12350227
BUBBLE MASSAGE FLOAT APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Patent 12343473
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TREATING HYPERAROUSAL DISORDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 01, 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
71%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+10.2%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 311 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month