Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/047,472

VOLLEYBALL TRAINING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 18, 2022
Examiner
CHIU, RALEIGH W
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
65%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
493 granted / 751 resolved
-4.4% vs TC avg
Minimal -1% lift
Without
With
+-0.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
771
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
§103
38.1%
-1.9% vs TC avg
§102
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
§112
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 751 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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 one resistance member threaded through the handle anchor (claim 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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. 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. Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UK Patent Application Number GB 2518515 (Macedo). Regarding claim 1, Figure 1 of Macedo shows a handle 15 with two ends. Retainer portions 31,32 correspond to the recited handle anchor. Figure 5 of Macedo shows a foot strap 50 including a foot strap anchor 52 and a resistance member 51 connected between the handle anchor 31,32 and foot strap anchor 52. Figure 1 of Macedo also shows first and second grips 21,22 made of foam but does not explicitly show the grip to be sliding. Also, see Macedo, page 3, last paragraph. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the foam grips of Macedo slideable for the purpose of easily replacing the grip when it is worn since it was known in the art that foam grips can be worn down over time and it would have been within the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace a worn grip by sliding the old grip off and sliding a new grip on. Regarding claim 2, Figure 5 of Macedo shows two foot straps 50. Regarding claim 4, Figure 5 of Macedo further shows the two foot straps 50 connected to handle anchor 31,32 by resistance members 51. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0185990 (Orescan et al., hereinafter Orescan). Regarding claims 1 and 2, Figures 1 and 8 of Orescan show the recited handle 20 having two ends and a handle anchor 60 located approximately in the middle of the handle. Figures 1 and 3 of Orescan further show two foot straps 50 including a resistance member 40 connected between handle anchor 60 and a foot strap anchor (where resistance member 40 is attached to foot strap 50). Figure 2 of Orescan shows two grips 35 but does not explicitly show them to be sliding. Also, see Orescan, paragraph [0041]. As Figures 5-10 of Orescan show that the handle can be used in different configurations and one of ordinary skill would readily recognize that users of different heights can use the Orescan device, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the Orescan grips slidable in order to change the position of the grips to accommodate a particular user’s optimum grip placement along the handle, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the adjustability of the grips. Making an element adjustable is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284. Regarding claim 3, Figures 1-2 of Orescan show resistance member 40 threaded through handle anchor 60 via a ring. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Raleigh Chiu whose telephone number is (571) 272-4408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim, can be reached on (571) 272-4463. The fax 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000. It is noted that all practice before the Office is in writing (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2) and the proper authority for action on any matter in this regard are the statutes (35 U.S.C.), regulations (37 C.F.R.) and the commentary on policy (MPEP). Therefore, no telephone discussion may be controlling or considered authority of Petitioner’s/Caller’s action(s). /RALEIGH W CHIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 18, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589288
DESKTOP ELASTIC LAUNCH GAME DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12551780
Amusement Activity Station
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12544651
Amusement Activity Station
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12521615
TRAINING DEVICE FOR STICK-BASED SPORTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12478861
BALL THROWING GAME MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 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
66%
Grant Probability
65%
With Interview (-0.9%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 751 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