Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/421,021

SWINGING TARGET DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 24, 2024
Examiner
WALTER, AUDREY BRADLEY
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Challenge Targetes, LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
943 granted / 1163 resolved
+11.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+15.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1196
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§103
34.8%
-5.2% vs TC avg
§102
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§112
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1163 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 10 May 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The non-patent literature documents for the cited YouTube videos were not provided. However, the examiner retrieved the references via YouTube such that all the non-patent literature documents have been considered. 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 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. “Challenge Targets Propeller Texas Star (aka Irish Plate Rack)” was first uploaded on YouTube on 4 January 2019 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqPTb3RQCwI; hereinafter Challenge Targets). Regarding claim 1, Challenge Targets discloses a swinging target device [A] (see annotated Figures below for all reference letters), comprising: a stand [B], an arm [C] having a first end [D] and a second end [E], the arm [C] pivoted to the stand [B] between the first and second ends [D, E] of the arm [C] for pivoting movement about a primary pivot axis [F], the arm [C] having a first arm portion [G] extending from the primary pivot axis [F] to the first end [D] of the arm [C] and having a second arm portion [H] extending from the primary pivot axis [F] to the second end [E] of the arm [C], a first target assembly [I] pivoted to the first end [D] of the arm [C] for pivoting movement about a first secondary pivot axis [J], and a second target assembly [K] pivoted to the second end [E] of the arm [C] for pivoting movement about a second secondary pivot axis [L] (see YouTube frames and annotated Figures 1-2 below). PNG media_image1.png 589 652 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 550 589 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Challenge Targets discloses the target device of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first and second target assemblies [I, K] has a variable mass that changes (when plate [M] is struck with bullet and falls off) when at least a portion [M] of the one of the first and second target assemblies is struck by a projectile (see annotated Figures 1-2 above and YouTube frame at 0:41 wherein plates [M] fall off when struck such that the mass of the target assemblies [I, K] decreases). Regarding claim 3, Challenge Targets discloses the target device of claim 2, wherein when the mass of the one of the target assemblies changes [I, K], a center of gravity of the one of the target assemblies [I, K] also changes (see annotated Figures 1-2 above and YouTube frame at 0:41 wherein when plates [M] fall off, the target assemblies [I, K] center of gravity changes such that the target assemblies [I, K] move erratically). Regarding claim 4, Challenge Targets discloses the target device of claim 1, wherein one of the first and second target assemblies [I] is configured to oscillate +/−90 degrees from vertical and the other of the first and second target assemblies [K] is configured to rotate through 360 degrees (see annotated Figures 1-2 above and YouTube frame at 0:41; wherein the target assemblies [I, K] are able to rotate 360 degrees about secondary pivot axes [J, L] and when a plate [M] is struck and falls off, the off-balance target assembly starts to oscillate +/−90 degrees from vertical). Regarding claim 5, Challenge Targets discloses the target device of claim 1, wherein: the first target assembly [I] comprises a target frame [N] extending upwardly from the first secondary pivot axis [J], a target panel [O] mounted to the target frame [N], and a counterweight [P] attached to the target frame [N] and extending downwardly from the first secondary pivot axis [J], and the second target assembly [K] comprises an arm assembly [Q] having at least three arms [R] projecting radially outwardly from the second secondary pivot axis [L], and a target plate [M] removably attached to a free end of each of the arms [R], the target plates [M] configured to detach from respective arms [R] when struck by a projectile (see annotated Figure 3 below and YouTube frame at 0:41 showing a plate [M] being struck by a projectile). PNG media_image3.png 393 346 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 6, Challenge Targets discloses the target device of claim 1, wherein the first and second arm portions [G, H] form an angle of 0 degrees to 180 degrees relative to one another (annotated Figures 1-2 above and YouTube frames at 0:07 and 0:18; wherein first and second arm portions [G, H] are separated by 180 degrees). Regarding claim 7, Challenge Targets discloses the target device of claim 1, wherein the first arm portion [G] has a first length and the second arm portion [H] has a second length, and wherein the first and second lengths are the same (annotated Figures 1-2 above and YouTube frames at 0:07 and 0:18). Regarding claim 9, Challenge Targets discloses the target device of claim 1, wherein a combined center of gravity of the arm [C] and the first and second target assemblies [I, K] is coaxial with the primary pivot axis [F] (see annotated Figures 1-2 above and YouTube frames at 0:07 and 0:18). Regarding claim 10, Challenge Targets discloses the target device of claim 1, wherein a combined center of gravity of the arm [C] and the first and second target assemblies [I, K] is not coaxial with the primary pivot axis [J] (see annotated Figures 1-2 above and YouTube frame at 0:41; wherein after plate [M] is struck by a projectile and falls off, the center of gravity of the arm and target assemblies [I, K] changes and is no longer coaxial with the primary pivot axis [J]). Regarding claim 11, Challenge Targets discloses a swinging target device [A] (see annotated Figures above for all reference letters), comprising: a stand [B], an arm [C] having a first end [D] and a second end [E], the arm [C] pivoted to the stand [B] between the first and second ends [D, E] of the arm [C] for pivoting movement about a primary pivot axis [F], a first target assembly [I] pivoted to the first end [D] of the arm [C] for pivoting movement about a first secondary pivot axis [J], and a second target assembly [K] pivoted to the second end [E] of the arm [C] for pivoting movement about a second secondary pivot axis [L], the first target assembly [I] comprising a target frame [N] extending upwardly from the first secondary pivot axis [J], a target panel [O] mounted to the target frame [N], and a counterweight [P] attached to the target frame [N] and extending downwardly from the first secondary pivot axis [J], the first target assembly [I] is configured to oscillate +/−90 degrees from vertical, the second target assembly [K] comprising an arm assembly [Q] having at least three arms [R] projecting radially outwardly from the second secondary pivot axis [L], and a target plate [M] removably attached to a free end of each of the arms [R], the target plates [M] configured to detach from respective arms [R] when struck by a projectile, the second target assembly [K] configured to rotate through 360 degrees (see YouTube frames and annotated Figures 1-3 above; wherein the target assemblies [I, K] are able to rotate 360 degrees about secondary pivot axes [J, L] and when a plate [M] is struck and falls off, the off-balance target assembly starts to oscillate +/−90 degrees from vertical). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Challenge Targets as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Townsend (US 2011/0163503 A1). Regarding claim 8, Challenge Targets discloses the target device of claim 1, wherein the first arm portion [G] has a first length and the second arm portion [H] has a second length (annotated Figures 1-2 above and YouTube frames at 0:07 and 0:18). Challenge Targets does not disclose the first and second lengths being different. Townsend, however, teaches a similar target device (Figure) having an arm [6, 6] comprising a first arm portion [6] (specifically, see lever arm [6] attached to target face [7]) and a second arm portion [6] (specifically, see lever arm [6] attached to media thrower [8]), wherein the first arm portion [6] has a first length and the second arm portion [6] has a second length, and wherein the first and second lengths are different (paragraphs 0011-0015, 0018, and Figure; wherein arm lengths can vary). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Challenge Targets’ first and second arm lengths to be different because Townsend teaches that this configuration offers different balance and spin characteristics for target shooting (paragraph 0018). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Howell (US 2021/0102787 A1), Bickel (US 2018/0087881 A1), Cesternino (US 2015/0276356 A1), Bliehall (US 7,735,832 B2) which all disclose similar swinging target devices. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY B. WALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571)272-4463. 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. /AUDREY B. WALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 24, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 26, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584477
Packing Leakage Detection System and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569810
A SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION CATALYST AND A PROCESS FOR PREPARING A SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION CATALYST
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571378
GEOTHERMAL POWER GENERATION SYSTEM AND SILICA SCALE DEPOSITION CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12553374
EXHAUST PIPE, METHOD FOR OPTIMIZING AND DESIGNING EXHAUST PIPE, AND ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546247
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
81%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+15.0%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1163 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