Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/894,780

PERIPHERAL VISUAL TRAINER AND PERIPHERAL VISUAL TRAINING SYSTEM

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 24, 2022
Examiner
WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE
Art Unit
3993
Tech Center
3900
Assignee
Perceptive Sport Technologies LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
77 granted / 116 resolved
+6.4% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
142
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
34.2%
-5.8% vs TC avg
§102
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
§112
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 116 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
FINAL REJECTION 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 . Reissue Applications Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR § 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which US Pat. # 10,751,592 (“the ‘592 patent”) is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations and litigations. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR § 1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04. Reissue Declaration 37 CFR 1.175 reads, in pertinent part: (a) The inventor’s oath or declaration for a reissue application, in addition to complying with the requirements of § 1.63, § 1.64, or § 1.67, must also specifically identify at least one error pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 251 being relied upon as the basis for reissue and state that the applicant believes the original patent to be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than the patentee had the right to claim in the patent. (b) If the reissue application seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent (a basis for the reissue is the patentee claiming less than the patentee had the right to claim in the patent), the inventor’s oath or declaration for a reissue application must identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden. A claim is a broadened claim if the claim is broadened in any respect. The reissue declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to sufficiently identify the error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. This reissue application seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent by adding new claims 15-28. However, claims 15-28 were cancelled in the amendment filed 06/02/2025. Original claims 1-14 are identical to the patented claims; therefore, there is no error to support this reissue proceeding. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 - Reissue Declaration The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 251: (a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue. Claims 1-14 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action. Recapture The previous rejection of claims 15-28 under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based is withdrawn in light of the amendment filed 06/02/2025 cancelling claims 15-28. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 - Original Patent The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 251: (a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue. The previous rejection of claims 20-25 under 35 USC 251 for not claiming subject matter directed to the invention disclosed in the original patent is withdrawn in light of the amendment filed 06/02/2025 cancelling claims 15-28. 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. The previous rejection of claims 20-25 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 is withdrawn in light of the amendment filed 06/02/2025 cancelling claims 15-28. Claim Objections The previous objection to claim 21 is withdrawn in light of the amendment filed 06/02/2025 cancelling claims 15-28. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The previous rejection of claim(s) 15-16, 18-21, and 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 5,300,921 to Hoch et al. (“Hoch”) is withdrawn in light of the amendment filed 06/02/2025 cancelling claims 15-28. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The previous rejection of claim(s) 17 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoch in view of USPN 5,150,104 to Thomas et al (“Thomas”) is withdrawn in light of the amendment filed 06/02/2025 cancelling claims 15-28. Allowable Subject Matter The indicated allowability of claims 1-14 in the previous office action (Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/13/2024) is withdrawn in light of the cancellation of claims 15-28 causing no error to be present in this reissue prosecution. 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 CATHERINE SERKE WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-4970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday core hours 8am-4pm ET. 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, Patricia L Engle can be reached on 571-272-6660. 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. /CATHERINE S WILLIAMS/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993 Conferees: /WILLIAM E DONDERO/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993 /Patricia L Engle/ SPRS, Art Unit 3993
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 24, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 24, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 19, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jun 02, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569663
Connector Safety Shield
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12495878
HAIRSTYLING APPARATUSES AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent RE50549
Focused Intraluminal Lithectomy Catheter Device and Methods
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 26, 2025
Patent RE50480
PORTABLE DRINKING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Patent RE50441
INJECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted May 27, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+26.4%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 116 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