Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/297,592

HANDHELD PROTECTIVE EYEWEAR

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 07, 2023
Examiner
DINH, JACK
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
555 granted / 652 resolved
+17.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
678
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.8%
-36.2% vs TC avg
§103
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§102
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
§112
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 652 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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. Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the plastic" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ismailov et al. (RU 2158530). Regarding claim 1, Ismailov (figure 1) discloses a protective eyewear comprising a lens 1 configured to protect a user's eyes when placed in front of the user's eyes, a first holding stick receptacle (clip-like portion on the left lens where the holding stick is attached to the left lens) on a first side of the lens, the first holding stick receptacle configured to receive a holding stick 2 oriented in a first direction, a second holding stick receptacle on a second side of the lens (clip-like portion on the right lens where the holding stick is attached to the right lens), the second holding stick receptacle configured to receive the holding stick oriented in the first direction, and the holding stick, configured to insert into at least one of the first holding stick receptacle or the second holding stick receptacle, wherein the holding stick is configured to be held by the user such that the lens is placed in front of the user's eyes. Ismailov discloses all the claimed limitations except for that the holding stick receptacles comprising a first hole and the second hole configured to receive the holding stick. Holding receptacles can range in a multitude of different forms and having a hole for receiving a stick is well within the knowledge of one skilled in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement receptacles in the form of a hole for the purpose of securing the holding stick. Regarding claim 2, Ismailov (figure 1) further discloses wherein when the holding stick is inserted into the first holding stick receptacle (clip-like portion on the left lens where the holding stick is attached to the left lens), the protective eyewear is to be held by the user's left hand. Regarding claim 3, Ismailov (figure 1) further discloses wherein when the holding stick is inserted into the second holding stick receptacle (clip-like portion on the right lens where the holding stick is attached to the right lens), the protective eyewear is to be held by the user's right hand. Regarding claims 4 and 5, Ismailov (figure 1) discloses all the claimed limitations except that wherein the first holding stick receptacle comprises a first divot configured to receive the holding stick oriented in a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction, wherein the second holding stick receptacle comprises a second divot configured to receive the holding stick oriented in the second direction, and wherein the holding stick is to snap into place on the first divot of the first holding stick receptacle and the second divot of the second holding stick receptacle such that the holding stick spans the first holding stick receptacle and the second holding stick receptacle, wherein the first divot is a cutout having a half-pipe shape or a C-shape and the second divot is a cutout having the half- pipe shape or a C-shape. However, folding the temple of an eyewear for compact storing is well known in the art. Eyewear comes with much more advance folding hinge mechanisms. So cutting out a C-shape on each end of the holding stick receptacles to hold the stick is well within the knowledge of one skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create 2 C-shape cuts on the holding stick receptacles for the purpose of holding the stick. Regarding claim 6, Ismailov (figure 1) discloses all the claimed limitations except that wherein the lens, the first holding stick receptacle, and the second holding stick receptacle are composed of plastic. However, lenses and attaching framing parts made of plastic is well known in the art for lightweight and low-cost purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use plastic for cost effective purpose. Regarding claim 7, Ismailov (figure 1) discloses all the claimed limitations except that wherein the plastic is a see-through plastic. However, eyewear made of see-through plastic is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use see-through plastic for design-choice purpose. Regarding claim 8, Ismailov (figure 1) further discloses wherein the lens, the first holding stick receptacle, and the second holding stick receptacle comprise a single body (the entire single body portion above the holding stick 2). Regarding claim 9, Ismailov (figure 1) further discloses wherein the holding stick comprises a rod having a first diameter at a first end (upper end of holding stick 2 has a smaller diameter) and a second diameter at a second end (lower end of holding stick 2 with a larger diameter to be functioned as a handle) that is greater than the first diameter. Regarding claim 10, Ismailov (figure 1) further discloses wherein the second end of the holding stick comprises a handle (lower end of holding stick 2 that functions as a handle). 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK DINH whose telephone number is (571)272-2327. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm. 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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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. /JACK DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2/21/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 07, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 29, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 29, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 11, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582311
OPHTHALMIC APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569136
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR AUTOMATING OPTHALMIC DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12562003
PUPIL ASSESSMENT USING MODULATED ON-AXIS ILLUMINATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557986
Eye Examination Method and System
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554109
ZOOM LENS AND IMAGING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+5.7%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 652 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