Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/437,070

SEMI-AUTOMATIC GRIP ASSEMBLY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Feb 08, 2024
Examiner
HONG, SEAHEE
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Shenzhen Shenshen Sports Equipment Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
526 granted / 769 resolved
-1.6% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
797
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
38.1%
-1.9% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 769 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the opening of the grip” in line 19 should be corrected as --[[the]]an opening of the grip--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the expansion claw” in line 7 should be corrected as --the expansion claws--. Appropriate correction is required. 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 5 and 9 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. Claim 5: Claim 5 recites “the first bracket” in line 3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 4 recites “a first bracket”. For examination purposes, claim 5 is interpreted to be dependent upon claim 4. Claim 5 recites “the slider” in line 4. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 5 recites “a slide block” in line 2. It is not clear whether “the slider” refers to “a slide block” or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, upon reviewing the originally filed specification and drawings, both “the slider” in line 4 are interpreted as --the [[slider]]slide block--. Claim 5 recites “when it reaches the predetermined position” in lines 5-6. However, the term, “it” renders the scope of the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, upon reviewing the rest of the claim, “when it reaches the predetermined position” is interpreted as --when [[it]]the slide block reaches the predetermined position--. Claim 9: Claim 9 recites “the second driving device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the second driving device” is interpreted as --[[the]]a second driving device--. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10 are allowable. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The subject matter of the independent claim(s) could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record. The subject matter of independent claim 1 not found was a use of the second moving platform being configured to move along the longitudinal direction and a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and the grip expansion mechanism being configured to move in the transverse direction; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 1 of the instant invention. None of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention. The closest prior art, Hsu (4,899,428) teaches a similar semi-automatic grip assembly device (figs1,4), comprising: a machine platform 41 (col.2 line26); a first clamping mechanism 43 (col.2 line28) fixed at a first end of the machine platform 41 (fig1), wherein the first clamping mechanism 43 clamps both sides of a club head (fig2, col.2 lines35-36) of a golf club (col.2 lines35-36) to fix the club head in a predetermined position (fig2); a second clamping mechanism 42 (col.2 lines28-33) fixed in a middle of the machine platform 41 (fig1), wherein the second clamping mechanism 41 is spaced a predetermined distance from the first clamping mechanism 43 (fig1), and fixedly clamps a shaft of the golf club (fig2, col.2 lines28-33); a first moving platform 36 (col.2 lines44-45, figs1,4) fixed at a second end of the machine platform 41 opposite to the first end (figs1,4), wherein a third clamping mechanism 32 (col.2 line48) is provided on the first moving platform 36, and the third clamping mechanism 32 is configured to clamp a grip of the golf club (col.2 lines48-50) therein and be able to move back and forth in a longitudinal direction of the shaft with the first moving platform 36 (figs1,4, along a track 38); and a second moving platform 37 (col.2 line46) arranged on the first moving platform 36 (fig4), wherein the second moving platform 36 is configured to move on the first moving platform 36 along the longitudinal direction (col.2 lines46-47); wherein, a grip expansion mechanism 31 (col.2 lines57-61) is also provided on the second moving platform 37, the grip expansion mechanism 31 moves in the longitudinal direction with the second moving platform 37 to insert into an opening of the grip and expand the opening (col.2 lines57-61). Although the prior art of record teaches a similar Hsu, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsu to use the second moving platform being configured to move along the longitudinal direction and a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and the grip expansion mechanism being configured to move in the transverse direction; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 1 of the instant invention. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the independent claim 1. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. D’Aguanno (US 6,854,170 B1), Weiss et al (US 6,336,263 B1), D’Aguanno (US 6,250,168 B1), Karner et al (5,870,815), Chu (5,839,181), Machado et al (4,901,418), Decato et al (4,763,394), and Holtzman (US 2012/0266427 A1) teach similar semi-automatic grip assembly devices. However, none of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET. 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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. /SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 08, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12611752
INSERTION TOOL
3y 6m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12606426
Tripod Car Jack
2y 2m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12600013
Miter Clamp Tool Assembly and Method
10m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594411
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR JOINING METAL SLEEVE ONTO A TUBE
8y 7m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589980
Hand Tool with Slip Resistant Tip
3y 1m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+29.7%)
2y 10m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 769 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