Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/444,605

Thumb-side, supernumerarily-widened neck for a non-drone string, handheld stringed musical instrument with a single neck

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Feb 16, 2024
Examiner
CASTILHO, EDUARDO D
Art Unit
3698
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
135 granted / 289 resolved
-5.3% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
321
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
§103
32.7%
-7.3% vs TC avg
§102
10.8%
-29.2% vs TC avg
§112
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 289 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Acknowledgements This Office Action is in response to the claims originally filed on 02/15/2025. Claim 1 was newly introduced. Claim 1 is pending. Claim 1 was examined. Claim Scope As an initial matter, the Examiner finds that because particular claims are rejected as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, it is impossible to properly construe claim scope at this time. See Honeywell International Inc. v. ITC, 68 USPQ2d 1023, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Because the claims are indefinite, the claims, by definition, cannot be construed."). However, in accordance with MPEP §2173.06 and the USPTO's policy of trying to advance prosecution by providing art rejections even though the claims are indefinite, the claims are construed and the art is applied as much as practically possible. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites multiple instances of single quotes in the claim. Examiner interprets the language as if no single quotes were present. Unnecessary single quotes in claim. Claim 1 recites "design-specified longitudinal portion of the neck 'below the nut slot'". Examiner interprets the language as design-specified longitudinal portion of the neck below the nut slot. Unnecessary double quotes in claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the nut slot"s line segment. Examiner interprets the language as the nut slot's line segment. Appropriate correction is required. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because its undue length (i.e. it contains more than 150 words). The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. See pages 12, 13 and 18, in which the disclosure recites https://ergo.human.cornell.edu/... ; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/... ; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernumerary. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. 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. Claim 1 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 1 recites “supernumerarily”. This language is unclear as this limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. The term “supernumerarily” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “supernumerarily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 recites “neck having at least 3/8 of an inch of total, not additionally wide, neck width inches, as measured upon the 'neck width plane', parallel to the 'neck width at the nut slot"s line segment and at its maximum and full width on the 'neck width plane', per the neck's overall three- dimensional design, blended into the design-specified longitudinal portion of the neck 'below the nut slot”. This language is unclear as the dimension associated with the term "total" is unclear. For instance it is unclear whether 3/8 / in total refers to a width, height or depth. The language "not additionally wide", disconnected from a structural element, adds uncertainty to the language above. The language "neck width inches" appears to miss conjunctions. Claim 1 recites “such longitudinal portion is most often expected”. This language is unclear as it is unclear the manner in which a portion is "expected". Claim 1 recites “the neck width plane” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Claim 1 recites “the nut slot's line segment” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Claim 1 recites “the neck's overall three-dimensional design” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Claim 1 recites “the nut slot” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Claim 1 recites “the 'thumb- side longitudinal edge of the 'neck'” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Claim 1 recites “the neck plane segment” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Claim 1 recites “ the 'neck face'” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Claim 1 recites “the anticipated perpendicular projection” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Claim 1 recites “the segment of the last string” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Claim 1 recites “the string set” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Claim 1 recites “ the remaining perimeter of the neck plane segment” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Claim 1 recites “ the points” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Claim 1 recites “ the perpendicular plane projection” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Claim 1 recites “ the perimeter of the neck plane” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Claim 1 recites “the thumb-side, supernumerarily-widened neck's specific, overall three- dimensional design” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Claim 1 recites “ the entire neck” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Claim 1 recites “ the regions 'above or at the nut slot'” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by bassline-bass.de (NPL 2021). With respect to claim 1, bassline-bass.de teaches a neck (20th Anniversary Worp) comprising: for a 'non-drone string, handheld stringed musical instrument with a single neck' comprising a neck construction that provides for a thumb-side, supernumerarily-widened neck having at least 3/8 of an inch of total, not additionally wide, neck width inches, as measured upon the 'neck width plane', parallel to the 'neck width at the nut slot"s line segment and at its maximum and full width on the 'neck width plane', per the neck's overall three- dimensional design, blended into the design-specified longitudinal portion of the neck 'below the nut slot', such longitudinal portion is most often expected to span the entire length of the neck 'below the nut slot', that lies between the 'thumb- side longitudinal edge of the 'neck' and the neck plane segment that begins on the 'neck face' then follows the anticipated perpendicular projection, perpendicular in relation to the 'neck width plane', of the segment of the last string in the string set that correlates to the above "design-specified longitudinal portion of the neck 'below the nut slot'", with such projection then continuing its perpendicular path towards then through the 'neck width plane' with the remaining perimeter of the neck plane segment being defined by the points where the perpendicular plane projection exits the neck directly underneath the 'neck face' where the perimeter of the neck plane segment initially began, with such blending and requisite shape altering being coordinated and occurring, per the thumb-side, supernumerarily-widened neck's specific, overall three- dimensional design, in tandem, if necessary, across all other regions of the entire neck such as the regions 'above or at the nut slot' - see the enlarged neck dimensions of the 20th Anniversary Worp: PNG media_image1.png 300 850 media_image1.png Greyscale Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Patent Literature Eckhart (US 6,89,297) discloses lyre-zither., including a widened neck. Smith (US 3,398,623) discloses musical instruments, including a neck comprising part of an integral stem which carries the string anchor, inclined bridge and inclined nut over which the strings are tensioned in a common plane. Pratt (US 2010/0192751 A1) discloses device to promote the technically correct spacing between a musician's palm and the fret board of a guitar, including a space bar attached to the neck of a guitar. Campbell (US 12,020,669 B1) discloses mobile steel guitar, including a wide neck body. Benson (US 4,483,233 A) discloses combined guitar and bass guitar uses eight strings, two being common to both types of instrument, and three pick=ups, including a widened neck. Ellestad et al. (US 2005/0072292 A1) disclose finger positioning guide for finger placement used by player for bass or guitar, has base strip of flexible ferrous magnetically receptive material, and overlaying strip of flexible magnetic material and having finger-positioning marker(s), including a neck widener removably attached to the top of the neck of the instrument. Boxberger (US 2008/0210077 A1) discloses multi-stringed musical instrument, has fretted bass guitar with bass guitar strings, and fretless bass guitar with fretless flat wound bass strings as single instrument with single neck, where neck accommodates strings, including a single instrument with a single wide neck. Santucci (US 4,377,101) discloses combination guitar and bass instrument has neck with enlarged frets accommodating 4 strings of bass and 8 strings of guitar, including a widened neck. Wilson (CA 2,772,730 A1) discloses necks for string instruments, including a bass side of the neck continuously chamfered relative to the treble side from the intermediate position for accommodating a user's thumb, so that the palm of the hand is allowed to be more comfortably extended. Non-Patent Literature Duffie (NPL 2023, listed in PTO-892 as page 1, reference "U") disclose The Baryton, including a widened neck. Wikipedia.com (NPL 2023, listed in PTO-892 as page 1, reference "V") disclose Baryton, including a widened neck. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO D CASTILHO whose telephone number is (571)270-1592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5. 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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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. /EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 16, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Jan 05, 2026
Response Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 22, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 22, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602699
Method for authenticating and anti-counterfeiting coffee machines or coffee grinders
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12567076
ELECTRONIC PAYMENT NETWORK SECURITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561690
CONTACTLESS ACCESS TO SERVICE DEVICES TO FACILITATE SECURE TRANSACTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12536526
PAPERLESS TICKET MANAGEMENT SERVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12536538
Method and System for Payment Device-Based Access
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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
47%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (+22.1%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 289 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