Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/988,342

SWIMSUIT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 16, 2022
Examiner
VENNE, DANIEL V
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
1162 granted / 1635 resolved
+19.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1686
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
31.1%
-8.9% vs TC avg
§102
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
§112
43.8%
+3.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1635 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . An amendment was filed by applicant on 02/04/2026. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 2, 4 and 5 are previously canceled. Claims 1, 3 and 6-12 are remaining in the application. The amended Drawings and Specification are accepted, except as otherwise noted. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: The Specification does not make clear that the newly added feature to the drawings (portion of the surface of the drawstring is reflective) is conventional or known. Since the newly added feature is known in the art and is illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation, the disclosure should disclose it as conventional or known in the art. See below included pertinent section of the MPEP. Appropriate correction is required. 1.83 Content of drawing. (a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 8. 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. 9. As best understood by the examiner, claims 1, 3, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 1457604 A (RATHMAN), cited by applicant. Regarding claim 1, D1 discloses: a swimsuit (‘bathing suit’) comprising a swimsuit body (Fig. 1); a waistband (Fig. 1) extending from the swimsuit body and defining a waistband volume (‘annularly extending pocket(s) or receptacle(s) [2] or space within flaps [10]; and, an inflatable drawstring arranged at least partially within the waistband volume and configured to be removed therefrom, the inflatable drawstring (comprising a bag (pneumatic tube) [5] with cloth or leather strap members [8]) removable from waistband entrance and exit apertures (Figs. 1-4) and extending through the exit and entrance apertures into the waistband volume and being dimensioned such that it can be removed by pulling the inflatable drawstring through either the entrance or exit aperture (Figs. 1-4). D1 does not disclose that the bag is folded along its length or rolled to form the drawstring as claimed. However, folding or rolling the bag along its length to create a more compact arrangement of the deflated tube or to accommodate larger diameter tubes for increased floatation purposes, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 3, 11 and 12, D1 includes a pair of swimming trunks (shorts) and the pneumatic tube [5] includes an inflatable volume detachably connected to the swimsuit body. D1 also discloses an air inlet nipple (tube) [9] permitting filling of pneumatic tube (bag) [5] with air. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features to improve upon the utility of the device as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter. 10. As best understood by the examiner, claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 1457604 A (RATHMAN), cited by applicant, in view of D3: RU-164849-U1 (СРИ), cited by the examiner. Regarding claims 6-10, D1 discloses all claimed features, except the recited one-way valve, gas source, reflective surface and light/sound source. However, D3 discloses such features as disclosed in the written description as a check valve [6], compressed gas cylinder [2], reflective tape, warning light [4] and whistle [5]. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features to improve upon the utility/safety of the device as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter. Response to Arguments 11. Applicant's arguments filed with the amendment have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons: Regarding applicant’s arguments that the prior art of D1 does not disclose a folded or rolled bag, it is acknowledged that such prior art does not explicitly disclose a folded or rolled bag; however, applicant has not persuasively argued that folding or rolling the bag (tube) [5] of D1 would not be either possible, reasonable or obvious in order to accommodate a larger diameter bag in the pocket [2] of Figs. 1 and 2 for increased floatation purposes. D1 further discloses that the bag is in the form of a relatively large tube and may be constructed of a suitable fabric or the like. D1 does not disclose a size limitation to such a bag nor that such a large bag is not capable of or is otherwise prevented from being folded or rolled. For the foregoing reasons, the prior art rejections are considered valid and are not withdrawn. Conclusion 12. 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. 13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7947. The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel J. Morano can be reached on (571) 272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 14. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Daniel V Venne/ Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3615 02/17/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 16, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 30, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 30, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 03, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 03, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 03, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 04, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600446
DEVICES AND SYSTEMS FOR MOUNTING A TRANSDUCER WITHIN A WATERCRAFT HULL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595030
HULL-MOUNTED INSTALLATION CONVERSION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595034
Variable Angle Rudder Lift Actuation Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589834
DEVICE FOR CONNECTING TWO PARTS OF A HULL OF A SHIP, AND HULL OF A SHIP COMPRISING SUCH A DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583561
SAILING BOAT WITH AN AUXILIARY HYDRODYNAMIC SURFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+14.9%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1635 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