Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/405,020

BRAIDING TRAINING TOOL

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 05, 2024
Examiner
FERNSTROM, KURT
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
1048 granted / 1589 resolved
-4.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1632
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
§103
38.6%
-1.4% vs TC avg
§102
16.7%
-23.3% vs TC avg
§112
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1589 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . 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. Claims 1, 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Truong. Truong discloses at col. 4, lines 3-7 a braid training tool comprising a wig cap configured to be placed on a mannequin (i.e. a head component), where the wig cap comprises a plurality of hair segments 14. Truong further discloses at col. 4, lines 63-65 that the hair segments my comprise hair, synthetic hair or yarn. Truong also discloses at col. 4, lines 33-55 the provision of right side hair segments 20, left side hair segments 22, and crown hair segments 24. These designations constitute a partition into segments. With respect to claim 2, the hair segments of Truong are capable of being formed into a cornrow or a plait. While Truong does not explicitly recite these patterns, the pertinent claim language constitutes functional language reciting an intended use or purpose of the device, which is not sufficient to impart patentability under MPEP 2114 so long as the apparatus is capable of the recited function. With respect to claim 10, Truong discloses the recited method of interweaving the hair segments to form a braid. 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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong in view of Davis. Truong discloses the claim limitations with the exception of providing hair segments with different thicknesses or textures. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Davis at paragraphs [0004] and [0006] (teaching strands for training in shoelace tying, which is considered to be an analogous art, having different textures), and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of providing a tactile indication of differing stranding to a user. With respect to claim 5, the provision of quadrant sections is considered to be an obvious variation on the teachings of the prior art. With respect to claim 6, Truong discloses a mannequin head as discussed above. Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong in view of Dana. Truong discloses the claim limitations with the exception of the head component being a container. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Dana at paragraphs [0025-27], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of allowing a user to conveniently store tools and other associated items in the device. The recited shape is considered to be an obvious aesthetic choice of design under MPEP 2144.04(I) as well as an obvious change in shape under MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). With respect to claim 9, Truong discloses in each of the Figures that its plurality of strands has a length greater than the height of its mannequin head. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong in view of Dana, and further in view of Passage. Truong as viewed in combination with Dana discloses the claim limitations with the exception of providing an edge operative as a ruler. Passage discloses at col. 3, lines 1-8 a mannequin head for hairstyle training having a grid thereon which is configured for use as a measuring tool. The recited ruler is considered to be obvious in light of the measuring device taught by Passage. The recited location of the measuring device is considered to be an obvious rearrangement of elements under MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). 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 KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6. 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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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. /KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 November 17, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 05, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 03, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 10, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588778
UPLIFTED HANDS ASSIST DEVICE FOR PRAYING LIKE MOSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12567342
Fluid Simulation Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12562078
VEIN SIMULATOR SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555493
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND MANIPULATIVES FOR INSTRUCTION IN EXPONENTS AND LOGARITHMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12555494
VASCULAR ACCESS TRAINING SIMULATOR SYSTEM AND TRANSPARENT ANATOMICAL MODEL
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
66%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+12.9%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1589 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