Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 28, 2026
Application No. 18/275,661

Mobility-Assistive Garment

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Aug 03, 2023
Priority
Feb 04, 2021 — provisional 63/199,948 +1 more
Examiner
HOEY, ALISSA L
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Encore Innovation Group LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
44%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 44% of resolved cases
44%
Career Allowance Rate
456 granted / 1027 resolved
-25.6% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
1072
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
73.5%
+33.5% vs TC avg
§102
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
§112
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1027 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/26 has been entered. 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 breeches, slacks, knickerbockers, britches, dunagrees, jeans, knickers, pantaloons, and sweatpants of claim 15 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. 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 sweater, shirt, coat, jacket, suitcoat, and sports coat of claims 16 and 18 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. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not on a separate sheet limited to a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: support needs to be provided for the language “stretch-resistant strap” as found in claims 1, 11, 12 and 20. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: support needs to be provided for the language “stretch-resistant nylon”, “stretch-resistant polypropylene” and “stretch-resistant polyester material” as amended into claims 15, 17 and 19. 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 18 and 19 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. In regard to claim 18, it is unclear what “itself” is referring to in line 8. There are multiple structures previously presented and it is unclear what structure is in direct contact with what. Applicant should refer to the specific structure that is in direct contact with what to get around this rejection. Any remaining claims are rejected depending from a rejected base claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dyer (US 9,415,254). In regard to claim 12, Dyer teaches a mobility-assistive pants (figures 1-2), comprising: an appendage leg tunnel including an interior surface (leg: 114); a strap sheath carried by the interior surface of the appendage leg tunnel (sheath/pocket: 140, figure 4), extending along the appendage leg tunnel (see figures 1-3), and establishing a strap tunnel (see figure 4); and a stretch-resistant strap extending through the strap tunnel of the strap sheath a distance greater than a length of the strap sheath (see figures 1-5, strap: 121 including 130), and slidable in the strap tunnel relative to the strap sheath and the appendage leg (column 4, lines 54-67 through column 5, lines 1-2), wherein the stretch-resistant strap is composed of stretch-resistant nylon material, stretch-resistant polypropylene material, or stretch-resistant polyester material (column 6, lines 11-36), wherein the appendage leg tunnel includes an opening in a middle one-third of the length of the appendage leg tunnel (see one of the openings in figures 1-4 which would be 1/3 the length of the tunnel), and wherein the stretch-resistant strap is extendible through the opening of the appendage leg tunnel to form an intermediate handle (see figures 1-4). In regard to claim 13, Dyer teaches wherein the opening is in a knee region of the appendage leg tunnel (see Figures 1-4, strap and opening at knee region). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-2, 4-11, 14-17 and 20 are allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found cited in PTO-892 form submitted herewith. The cited prior art to Glaude et al. (US 10,660,374) is of particular relevance to the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 EST. 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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571)272-5559. 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. ALISSA L. HOEY Primary Examiner Art Unit 3732 /ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 7 earlier events
Dec 04, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 26, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 19, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112
Apr 29, 2026
Interview Requested
May 08, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
May 08, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 11, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12635740
UNITARY GARMENT TO FACILITATE LAVATORY ACCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12538950
Facemasks and Method for Manufacturing the Same
5y 4m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12538952
Personal Protective Devices With Carrying Bags
4y 11m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12538953
REDUCED FABRIC OUTDOOR PROTECTIVE GARMENT-LIKE DEVICE
3y 4m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12527369
Safety Vest with Protection Plates
2y 8m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
44%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+32.0%)
3y 3m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1027 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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