Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/441,064

Bow Hand Training Device for Teaching Orchestral Student how to Pronate the Bow Towards the Strings While Playing

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Feb 14, 2024
Examiner
LOCKETT, KIMBERLY R
Art Unit
2837
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
969 granted / 1172 resolved
+14.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1197
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
46.0%
+6.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1172 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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 1-9 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. Claims 1-9 are replete with lack of antecedent informalities including: “the strings”, “the bottom”, “the shape”, “the wrap..”, “the Bend…”, “the thumb”, “the pinky”, “the upper”, “the curled”, “the appropriate”, and “the violin”. The applicant is behooved to review all of the claims for such lack of antecedent informalities. Regarding claim 2, the phrase “to encourage the user to…” is unclear. What is meant by “to encourage”? This fails so specifically define the applicant’s invention. Regarding claim 7, line 1 recites “wherein the upper surface of the has a…”. It is unclear what the applicant is referred to. Claim 8 recites “helps facilitate”. It is unclear what is meant by “helps facilitate”. Clarification is required. 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter (20220005375) in view of Bennett (US6288315). Regarding claim 1, Carter (20220005375) discloses the use of a bow hand training device (10) for teaching orchestral students how to pronate the bow toward the strings while playing comprising of an upper surface (24), two side surfaces and an underneath surface, a plurality of ridges (bordering the indentation), and a ridge (bordering the indentation) on the bottom surface. Carter does not disclose the use of a sticker sheet. Bennett (US6288315) discloses that the use of stickers from sticker sheets applied to musical instruments to facilitate learning is conventional and well known in the art (column 10, lines 43-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device as disclosed in Carter to attach stickers as disclosed in Bennett to a training bow device in order to provide guidance when learning how to play a musical instrument. Regarding claim 2, Carter discloses the use of a bow hand training device, wherein one side surface has a specific shape with a contour to encourage the user to wrap their fingers around the shape of the device (see figure 1). Carter and Bennett do not disclose the specific shape as recited by the applicant. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device as disclosed in Carter to use the semicircular shape as recited but the applicant since it has been held that the shape of a device was a matter of choice which a person or ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Dalley, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) Regarding claim 3, Carter discloses the use of a bow hand training device (10) wherein one side surface has a contoured shape (see the shape in figure 1). Carter does not disclose the use of a sticker. Bennett (US6288315) discloses that the use of stickers from sticker sheets applied to musical instruments to facilitate learning is conventional and well known in the art (column 10, lines 43-53). However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device as disclosed in Carter to include a Wrap Fingers Sticker on the training device as a matter of design choice. Carter and Bennett not disclose the specific shape as recited by the applicant. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device as disclosed in Carter to use the semicircular shape as recited but the applicant since it has been held that the shape of a device was a matter of choice which a person or ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Dalley, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) Regarding claims 4-6, Carter does not disclose the specific use of a cutout. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device as disclosed in Carter to attach stickers as disclosed in Bennett to a training bow device in order to provide finger placement guidance for a thumb and pinkie when learning how to play a musical instrument. Regarding claims 7 and 8, Carter and Bennett do not disclose the specific use of tactile guidance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device as disclosed in Carter to attach stickers as disclosed in Bennett to a training bow device and the use of ridges embedded in the bottom in order to provide tactile and bow angle guidance for a user while playing the violin. Regarding claim 9, Bennett discloses wherein the sticker sheet has a plurality of stickers (column 10, lines 45-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device as disclosed in Carter to attach stickers as disclosed in Bennett to a training and bow device in order to guide a user on how to hold and use the violin bow. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY R LOCKETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2067. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 pm M-F. 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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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. /KIMBERLY R LOCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 14, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603070
Speed Reducing Instrument Tuner and Assemblies Thereof
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603069
FRETBOARD GUARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603072
Easy Application Harmonica Holder
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597404
PORTABLE GRAVITY-GRIP MUSICAL INSTRUMENT STAND
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592213
TAP GUITAR PICK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
83%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+10.7%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1172 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