Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/130,634

INFANT ANTI-FLAIL GARMENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 04, 2023
Examiner
SMITH, HALEY ANNE
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Nested Bean Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
125 granted / 224 resolved
-14.2% vs TC avg
Strong +59% interview lift
Without
With
+59.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
252
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
§103
46.9%
+6.9% vs TC avg
§102
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
§112
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 224 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application, with Claim 1 being newly amended. 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. Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krawchuk (US 20160128392) in view of Tuteur (US 2723398). Regarding Claim 1, Krawchuk teaches an infant sleeping garment (200), comprising: a textile body (130) formed from a basal fabric adapted to engage an infant wearer of the garment (paragraph [0113], “the swaddling garment 100 shown in FIG. 1A is made of a resilient material with two-way stretch,” wherein resilient material with two-way stretch is considered as equivalent to a basal fabric. While paragraph [0113] is referring to another embodiment, paragraph [0123] teaches that “The features of embodiment 200 are otherwise as described for embodiment 100 illustrated in FIGS. 1A and 1B,” therein the garment (200) also is made of a basal fabric); a head opening (165) at an uppermost region (110) of the textile body (fig. 3A shows a head opening (165) at an uppermost region (110) of the textile body (130)); sleeve openings (180) in the textile body facing opposed directions adjacent the head opening (fig. 3A shows the sleeve openings (180) in the textile body (130) facing opposite directions and being positioned adjacent the head opening (165)); opposed arm receptacles (140) flanking the head opening and sized for receiving respective arms of the infant such that each arm receptacle encloses a respective arm (fig. 3A shows the opposed arm receptacles (140) flanking the head opening (165); paragraph [0107] teaches “the arm (which is wholly contained within the wing portion 140 in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position)”) , each of the opposed arm receptacles surrounding the respective sleeve opening (fig. 4 shows the arm receptacles (140) being attached and therein surrounding the sleeve openings (180)); a circumferential attachment (185) around an opening of the respective arm receptacle securing each of the arm receptacles to the textile body (paragraph [0121], “The detachable wing portions 140 can be fastened to the bodice portion using any suitable fastening means, such as the hook and loop fasteners shown in FIG. 3A labelled item 185 or a zipper means.”; fig. 3A shows the attachment being a circumferential attachment that extends around an opening of the arm receptacle); and a lowermost region (120) of the textile body extending to a portion of the textile body longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (110) and forming a closed volume configured to encapsulate legs of the infant (fig. 3A shows the lowermost region (120) extending to a portion (135) of the textile body (130) longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (110); paragraph [0110], “a pouch 135 for enclosing the infant's legs,” therein as the portion is configured to enclose or encapsulate the legs it clearly forms a closed volume, as shown in figs. 3A and 3B). Krawchuk does not teach wherein the attachment is unaligned with the respective sleeve opening. Attention is drawn to Tuteur, which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Tuteur teaches an infant sleeping garment (fig. 1), comprising: a textile body (2); a head opening (8) at an uppermost region of the textile body (Annotated fig. 1 shows the head opening at the uppermost region of the textile body); opposed arm receptacles (9) flanking the head opening (fig. 1 shows opposed arm receptacles flanking the head opening); and an attachment (12) securing a first portion (see annotated Fig.) of the textile body to a second portion (see annotated Fig.) of the textile body, the attachment unaligned with the opening (10) of the textile body (Annotated figs. 1 and 4 show the attachment (12) positioned back from the edge of the opening on the first portion of the textile body, therein considered as being unaligned with the opening); and a lowermost region (see annotated Fig.) of the textile body extending to a portion of the textile body longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (Annotated fig. 1 shows the lowermost region of the textile body extending to a portion of the textile body (2) longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krawchuk to include the teachings of Tuteur such that the attachments are unaligned with the sleeve openings so as to avoid catching the wearer’s skin when fastening the arm receptacles to the sleeve openings and so as to protect the wearer from rubbing against the rough fasteners while wearing the garment. Regarding Claim 2, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein the arm receptacles (140) define an overlapping region (see annotated Fig.) with the textile body (130) between the attachment (185) and the sleeve opening (180) (annotated fig. 4 shows the overlapping region between the textile body (130) and the arm receptacles (140) where the hook and loop attachment (185) fasten to one another, the hook and loop as taught in paragraph [0121]: “The detachable wing portions 140 can be fastened to the bodice portion using any suitable fastening means, such as the hook and loop fasteners shown in FIG. 3A labelled item 185 or a zipper means.”). Regarding Claim 3, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein the attachment (185) defines a perimeter larger than a perimeter of the sleeve opening (180) (fig. 3A shows the attachment (185) being attached to the outer surface of the textile body (130) at the sleeve opening (180), therein necessarily defining a larger perimeter than the sleeve opening (180), which is on the inner side of the textile body). Regarding Claim 4, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein the sleeve openings (180) are discontinuous with the arm receptacles (140) (figs. 3A and 4 shows the sleeve openings (180) extending inside of the arm receptacles (140), therein being discontinuous with the arm receptacles). Regarding Claim 5, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein the attachment (185) is a detachable closure, the arm receptacles separable from the textile body via the detachable closure (paragraph [0121], “The detachable wing portions 140 can be fastened to the bodice portion using any suitable fastening means, such as the hook and loop fasteners shown in FIG. 3A labelled item 185 or a zipper means,” wherein zippers and hook and loop are clearly detachable closures). Regarding Claim 6, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 5, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein the detachable closure is a zipper (paragraph [0121], “The detachable wing portions 140 can be fastened to the bodice portion using any suitable fastening means, such as the hook and loop fasteners shown in FIG. 3A labelled item 185 or a zipper means,” wherein the attachment (185) is clearly a detachable closure) Regarding Claim 7, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein each arm receptacle (140) forms a closed volume around the sleeve opening (180) (fig. 4 shows the arm receptacles (140) forming a closed volume around the sleeve opening (180); paragraph [0098] teaches “each wing portion 140 is designed to completely surround and retain one of the infant's arms,” therefore as the arm receptacles completely retain the infant’s arm, it clearly forms a closed volume). Regarding Claim 8, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches a closure (160) on a front of the textile body (130) extending from the head opening (165) and between the sleeve openings (180) configured to provide entry and exit of the infant from the garment (fig. 3A shows the closure (160) extending on the front of the textile body (130) from the head opening (165) down below the sleeve openings (180); paragraph [0115], “opening 160 to allow insertion of an infant into the garment.”). PNG media_image1.png 666 493 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 616 445 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 273 575 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 731 711 media_image4.png Greyscale Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krawchuk (US 2016/0128392) in view of Tuteur (US 2723398), and further in view of Kassai et al. (US 2005/0034204). Regarding Claim 9, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk does not teach an elongated strip forming an outer perimeter of the arm receptacle, and having greater elasticity than the basal fabric. Attention is drawn to Kassai et al., which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Kassai et al. teaches an infant sleeping garment (21), comprising: a textile body (see annotated Fig.) formed from a basal fabric (4) adapted to engage an infant wearer of the garment (annotated fig. 4 shows the textile body made from basal fabric that is adapted to engage a wearer); a head opening (see annotated Fig.) at an uppermost region of the textile body (Annotated fig. 4 shows a head opening at an uppermost region of the textile body); opposed arm receptacles (see annotated Fig.) flanking the head opening and sized for receiving respective arms of the infant (annotated fig. 4 shows the arm receptacles flanking the head opening and being sized to receive respective arms of the wearer); and a lowermost region (see annotated Fig.) of the textile body extending to a portion of the textile body longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (annotated fig. 4 shows the lowermost region extending to a portion of the textile body that is longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region). Kassai et al. further teaches an elongated strip (see annotated Fig.) forming an outer perimeter of the arm receptacle (Annotated fig. 21 shows the elongated strip extending along an outer perimeter of the arm receptacle, therein forming an outer perimeter of the arm receptacle. Examiner notes that while the elongated strip does not form the entire outer perimeter, this is not required by the claim limitations, and therein the elongated strip forming a portion of the outer perimeter is considered as meeting the claimed limitations), and having greater elasticity than the basal fabric (fig. 4 shows the elongated strip being made of “stretchable mesh material 3” (paragraph [0044]), and as paragraph [0045] teaches “according to the third embodiment, stretchability and permeability can be provided in the portions of the sides of an infant,” the material of the elongated strip is clearly of greater elasticity than the basal fabric, otherwise the stretchable mesh would not need to be inserted to impart stretchability to the garment). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Krawchuk such that the garment includes an elongated strip forming an outer perimeter of the arm receptacle, and having greater elasticity than the basal fabric so as to add stretchability and permeability to the arm receptacle, increasing the comfort of the wearer (paragraph [0045] teaches “according to the third embodiment, stretchability and permeability can be provided in the portions of the sides of an infant”). Regarding Claim 10, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 9, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk does not teach wherein the elongated strip further comprises an undistorted position and an expanded position, the elongated strip configured to be in the undistorted position when not engaged by the infant, such that the undistorted position disposes the arm receptacle below a horizontal line defined by an uppermost limit of the head opening. Attention is drawn to Kassai et al., which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Kassai et al. teaches an infant sleeping garment (21), comprising: a textile body (see annotated Fig.) formed from a basal fabric (4) adapted to engage an infant wearer of the garment (annotated fig. 4 shows the textile body made from basal fabric that is adapted to engage a wearer); a head opening (see annotated Fig.) at an uppermost region of the textile body (Annotated fig. 4 shows a head opening at an uppermost region of the textile body); opposed arm receptacles (see annotated Fig.) flanking the head opening and sized for receiving respective arms of the infant (annotated fig. 4 shows the arm receptacles flanking the head opening and being sized to receive respective arms of the wearer); and a lowermost region (see annotated Fig.) of the textile body extending to a portion of the textile body longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (annotated fig. 4 shows the lowermost region extending to a portion of the textile body that is longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region), and an elongated strip (see annotated Fig.) and extending along an outer perimeter of the arm receptacle (Annotated fig. 21 shows the elongated strip extending along an outer perimeter of the arm receptacle), and having greater elasticity than the basal fabric (fig. 4 shows the elongated strip being made of “stretchable mesh material 3” (paragraph [0044]), and as paragraph [0045] teaches “according to the third embodiment, stretchability and permeability can be provided in the portions of the sides of an infant,” the material of the elongated strip is clearly of greater elasticity than the basal fabric, otherwise the stretchable mesh would not need to be inserted to impart stretchability to the garment). Kassai et al. further teaches wherein the elongated strip further comprises an undistorted position and an expanded position, the elongated strip configured to be in the undistorted position when not engaged by the infant (paragraph [0044] teaches the elongated strip being a “stretchable mesh material,” therefore it clearly has an undistorted position when unstretched and not engaging with the infant, and an expanded position when the mesh is stretched), such that the undistorted position disposes the arm receptacle below a horizontal line defined by an uppermost limit of the head opening (Fig. 4 shows the elongated strip in its undistorted position with the arm receptacle disposed below the uppermost limit of the head opening). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Krawchuk such that the elongated strip further comprises an undistorted position and an expanded position, the elongated strip configured to be in the undistorted position when not engaged by the infant, such that the undistorted position disposes the arm receptacle below a horizontal line defined by an uppermost limit of the head opening so as to add stretchability and permeability to the arm receptacle, allowing the wearer to move and comfortably within the arm receptacles, increasing the comfort of the wearer (paragraph [0045] teaches “according to the third embodiment, stretchability and permeability can be provided in the portions of the sides of an infant”). Regarding Claim 11, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein the uppermost limit (see annotated Fig.) of the head opening (165) defines a narrowest width of the textile body (130) (annotated fig. 3A shows the uppermost limit of the head opening (165) defining the narrowest width of the textile body). Regarding Claim 12, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein the lowermost region (120) most distal from the neck opening (165) defines a widest width of the textile body (130) (fig. 3A shows the lowermost region (120) that is most distal from the neck opening defining the widest width of the textile body (130)) PNG media_image5.png 667 877 media_image5.png Greyscale Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krawchuk (US 2016/0128392) in view of Tuteur (US 2723398), and further in view of a second embodiment of Krawchuk, hereinafter referred to as Krawchuk2. Regarding Claim 13, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches a chest pressure accessory attached to the textile body between the arm receptacles, the chest pressure accessory having a greater mass than the basal fabric. Attention is drawn to Krawchuk2, which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Krawchuk2 teaches an infant sleeping garment (600), comprising: a textile body (130) formed from a basal fabric adapted to engage an infant wearer of the garment (paragraph [0113], “the swaddling garment 100 shown in FIG. 1A is made of a resilient material with two-way stretch,” wherein resilient material with two way stretch is considered as equivalent to a basal fabric. While paragraph [0113] is referring to another embodiment, paragraph [0131] teaches that “The embodiment of FIGS. 6A-6E and 7A-7F has the same features as described in relation to the embodiments of FIGS. 1A and 1B,” therein the garment (200) also is made of a basal fabric); a head opening (165) at an uppermost region (110) of the textile body (fig. 3A shows a head opening (165) at an uppermost region (110) of the textile body (130)); opposed arm receptacles (140) flanking the head opening and sized for receiving respective arms of the infant such that each arm receptacle encloses a respective arm (fig. 3A shows the opposed arm receptacles (140) flanking the head opening (165); paragraph [0107] teaches “the arm (which is wholly contained within the wing portion 140 in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position)”); and a lowermost region (120) of the textile body extending to a portion of the textile body longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (110) and forming a closed volume for encapsulating legs of the infant (fig. 3A shows the lowermost region (120) extending to a portion (135) of the textile body (130) longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (110); paragraph [0110], “a pouch 135 for enclosing the infant's legs,” therein as the portion encloses the legs it clearly forms a closed volume, as shown in figs. 3A and 3B). Krawchuck2 further teaches a chest pressure accessory (see annotated Fig.) (paragraph [0135] “The weighted portions (cross-hatched areas of FIGS. 6A-6E,” wherein the weighted portions form the chest pressure accessory as shown in annotated fig. 6A) attached to the textile body between the arm receptacles (annotated fig. 6A shows the chest pressure accessory being attached to the textile body (130) between the arm receptacles (140)), the chest pressure accessory having a greater mass than the basal fabric (paragraph [0135] “The weighted portions (cross-hatched areas of FIGS. 6A-6E, 7A-7F, and 8A-8D) have higher thermal weight and/or material weight than the non-weighted portions (the areas not shaded in FIGS. 6A to 8D)”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krawchuk to include the teachings of Krawchuk2 such that the garment includes a chest pressure accessory attached to the textile body between the arm receptacles, the chest pressure accessory having a greater mass than the basal fabric so as to provide gentle pressure to soothe the wearer (paragraph [0133], “This semi-rigid portion applies gentle pressure to the abdomen areas of an infant within the garment 600.”). Regarding Claim 14, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk does not teach one or more abdominal pressure accessories attached to the textile body below the arm receptacles, each abdominal pressure accessory having a greater mass than the basal fabric. Attention is drawn to Krawchuk2, which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Krawchuk2 teaches an infant sleeping garment (600), comprising: a textile body (130) formed from a basal fabric adapted to engage an infant wearer of the garment (paragraph [0113], “the swaddling garment 100 shown in FIG. 1A is made of a resilient material with two-way stretch,” wherein resilient material with two way stretch is considered as equivalent to a basal fabric. While paragraph [0113] is referring to another embodiment, paragraph [0131] teaches that “The embodiment of FIGS. 6A-6E and 7A-7F has the same features as described in relation to the embodiments of FIGS. 1A and 1B,” therein the garment (200) also is made of a basal fabric); a head opening (165) at an uppermost region (110) of the textile body (fig. 3A shows a head opening (165) at an uppermost region (110) of the textile body (130)); opposed arm receptacles (140) flanking the head opening and sized for receiving respective arms of the infant such that each arm receptacle encloses a respective arm (fig. 3A shows the opposed arm receptacles (140) flanking the head opening (165); paragraph [0107] teaches “the arm (which is wholly contained within the wing portion 140 in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position)”); and a lowermost region (120) of the textile body extending to a portion of the textile body longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (110) and forming a closed volume for encapsulating legs of the infant (fig. 3A shows the lowermost region (120) extending to a portion (135) of the textile body (130) longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (110);m paragraph [0110], “a pouch 135 for enclosing the infant's legs,” therein as the portion encloses the legs it clearly forms a closed volume, as shown in figs. 3A and 3B). Krawchuck2 further teaches at least one abdomen accessory (see annotated Fig.) (paragraph [0135] “The weighted portions (cross-hatched areas of FIGS. 6A-6E,” wherein the weighted portions form the chest pressure accessory) attached to the textile body below the arm receptacles (annotated fig. 6A shows the abdomen pressure accessory being attached to the textile body (130) below the arm receptacles (140)), the at least one abdomen pressure accessory having a greater mass than the basal fabric (paragraph [0135] “The weighted portions (cross-hatched areas of FIGS. 6A-6E, 7A-7F, and 8A-8D) have higher thermal weight and/or material weight than the non-weighted portions (the areas not shaded in FIGS. 6A to 8D)”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krawchuk to include the teachings of Krawchuk2 such that one or more abdominal pressure accessories attached to the textile body below the arm receptacles, each abdominal pressure accessory having a greater mass than the basal fabric so as to provide gentle pressure to soothe the wearer (paragraph [0133], “This semi-rigid portion applies gentle pressure to the abdomen areas of an infant within the garment 600.”). PNG media_image6.png 664 521 media_image6.png Greyscale Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 09/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims 1-8 over Krawchuk in view of Tuteur, Applicant submits that Tuteur does not teach the attachment being a circumferential attachment, and therefore submits that Claim 1 is allowable. Examiner agrees that Tuteur does not teach the attachment being a circumferential attachment that extends around the opening of the respective arm receptacle, however Examiner notes that Tuteur is only being relied upon for teaching the attachment being unaligned from the sleeve opening. Krawchuk, as noted in the rejection above, does teach an attachment that is a circumferential attachment and therein Tuteur is not required to cure this deficiency. Given this, Krawchuk modified with the teachings of Tuteur teaches all of the limitations of amended Claim 1. For at least these reasons, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claim 1 is maintained. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEY A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-6597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on (571)272-4888. 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. /HALEY A SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 04, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 09, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 14, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 15, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 18, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 18, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601568
BALLISTIC BODY ARMOR JACKET CARRIER WITH BREAKAWAY POCKETS AND A METHOD OF SECURING AND CONCEALING ARMOR PLATE PANELS IN JACKETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599199
ASSEMBLY FOR COUPLING AN AESTHETIC MEMBER TO AN ACCESSORY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599194
RUNNING SHOE SOLE COMPRISING A SOFT-ELASTIC MIDSOLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593890
SHOE SOLE HAVING RECESSED POCKETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588732
GOLF SHOE WITH INTERNAL STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+59.0%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 224 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