Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/312,174

WATCHBAND RELEASE BUTTON SPANNER PUSH TOOL

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
May 04, 2023
Examiner
RODGERS, THOMAS RAYMOND
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
220 granted / 375 resolved
-11.3% vs TC avg
Strong +60% interview lift
Without
With
+60.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
417
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§112
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 375 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/2/2023 is being considered. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 5 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 5 recites the limitation “ wherein the plastic material makes a distinctive clicking sound when the pin engagement tabs are pressed during use. ” It is unclear what is meant by a distinctive clicking sound. Since there are unlimited watch and pin configurations, any pin movement would make a noise (at a certain decibel) and with endless possibilities of distinct noises. As such the claim is determined to be indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as “ wherein the plastic material makes a distinctive clicking sound when the pin engagement tabs are pressed during use. ” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Burns (US 2,389,954) . Regarding claim 1, Burns discloses a watchband release button spanner tool comprising: a central spanner body having a substantially disc-shaped body (Item 10) with a watch-facing surface (Figure 2 right of page) , an opposing surface, and a disc perimeter; and at least two watch pin engagement tabs (Items 19) extending from opposing sides of the spanner body, each pin engagement tab including a raised knob member protruding from the pin engagement tab from the watch-facing surface (Items 16, 17, and 18) , and each raised knob member being surmounted by a watch case release pin engagement probe (Item 21) configured to interact with a wristwatch case release pin in order to engage the release pin so as to permit separation of a band segment from the watch case (the configured to language is viewed as intended use, while Burns is directed toward removing the cover off a watch it is also capable of depressing a pin for band removal) . Regarding claim 2, Burns discloses t he watchband release button spanner tool of claim 1, further comprising a raised lip situated near the disc perimeter of the spanner body (for Item 11 shown best in Figure 2) . 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns (US 2,389,954) in view of P liley (US 6,640,666) . Regarding claim 3, Burns discloses t he watchband release button spanner tool of claim 2 . Burns fails to explicitly disclose wherein the raised lip includes at least two raised lip portions. Pliley teaches a watch working article wherein there are multiple cutouts around the raised lip such that there are multiple raised lips (for Items 144, Column 12 Line 64- Column 13 Line 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size and shape of the spanner body of Burns to include several different sizes and several different openings in the body to create a plurality of raised lip portions as taught by Pliley. Such a modification would allow for the spanner tool to fit around the body of the watch and avoid critical items such as buttons. This would be beneficial since there are so many sizes of watches and the size of Burns may not accommodate all of them. Claim s 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns (US 2,389,954) in view of Huenke (US 5,797,301) . Regarding claim 4, Burns discloses t he watchband release button spanner tool of claim 1. Burns fails to explicitly disclose wherein the watchband release button spanner tool is fabricated from a molded plastic material. Huenke teaches a wrench tool wherein the tool is fabricated from a molded plastic material (Column 1 Lines 55-62) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of Burns for the plastic material of Huenke. Such a modification is viewed as a change in material, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Huenke discusses how the plastic material gives a light weight and strong tool (Column 1 Lines 55-62). Regarding claim 5, (as best understood) Burns in view of Huenke disclose t he watchband release button spanner tool of claim 4, wherein the plastic material makes a distinctive clicking sound when the pin engagement tabs are pressed during use. From the Examiner’s best understanding, the tab, raised knob member, and pin are all solid plastic objects, not capable of moving or collapsing. Thus there is no internal noise being generated by the tool. The noise must come from the interaction of the plastic body pressing against a pin of a watch band. Thus since the prior art shows the pins can be made of plastic, they would then also create the same noise since the claimed structure is the same. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-4849 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT David Posigian can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (313) 446-6546 . 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. /TOM RODGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 04, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583724
CAP OPENING AND CLOSING APPARATUS AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569111
Footwear Vacuum Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558578
Demolishing of glazing at a distance
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557904
PAINT BRUSH CLEANING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551067
SURFACE CLEANING 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+60.1%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 375 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