Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/449,015

GRIP ASSIST GLOVE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 14, 2023
Examiner
HOEY, ALISSA L
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
4 (Final)
44%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 44% of resolved cases
44%
Career Allow Rate
454 granted / 1022 resolved
-25.6% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+31.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1072
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.9%
-35.1% vs TC avg
§103
35.9%
-4.1% vs TC avg
§102
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1022 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Amendment This is in response to amendment received on 01/15/26. Claims 1, 5, 8,12, 15 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 19 are examined herein. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the title is repeated. 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). 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(s) 1, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Materon (US 6,550,068) in view of Lento (US 6,810,531). In regard to claim 1, Materon teaches a grip assist glove (10) comprising: a glove having finger sleeves, a palm side portion, a back side portion, a wrist covering portion, a webbing (see finger sleeves, palm, back and wrist in figures 1 and 2, inner layer is glove layer 12 and outer layer is Velcro: 40, 50 and/or wrist strap 32, webbing is fastener: 44 as seen in figure 1); wherein said finger sleeves having a thumb sleeve, an index finger sleeve (see finger and thumb sleeves in figure 1 and 2); wherein said palm side portion covers a palm region of a hand of a user and said back side portion covers a posterior region of the hand of the user (see figures 1 and 2); and wherein said webbing (Velcro sleeve: 44) is integrated into the glove creating bridge between the thumb sleeve and the index finger sleeve (connection at 40 and 50 see figures 1 and 2, column 2, lines 41-54) and comprises a continuous channel extending along a length of the webbing between a top opening and a bottom opening in the webbing (see figure 1). However, Materon fails to teach the glove having a top opening, wherein said top opening having an opening for a wearer’s middle finger, ring finger, and pinky finger to extend therethrough and the webbing specifically being flexible such that it conforms the continuous channel to a shape of a utensil mounted within the continuous channel. Lento teaches a glove for assisting with holding an item (see figures 1) wherein the glove has a top opening for a wearer’s middle finger, ring finger and pinky finger to extend (see figures and column 2, lines 29-42); and wherein an continuous channel made from an elastic band holds a drum stick in place during use, wherein the continuous channel is made out of a flexible elastic material so that it conforms the channel to a shape of the drum stick mounted within the continuous channel (column 3, lines 12-15 and 56-66). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the glove of Materon with the exposed finger sleeves and flexible, elastic band channel as taught by Lento, since the glove of Materon having exposed finger sleeves would provide a glove that assists with holding a writing tool while providing breathability and allowing to retain tactile contact with the fingers and the writing implement (column 2, lines 40-42), while the flexible elastic band of the channel would hold the utensil therein in a secure and flexible manner. In regard to claim 5, Lento teaches a glove for assisting with holding and item (see figures 1) wherein each said finger sleeve covers a first portion of the fingers of the wearer and exposes a distal phalangeal second portion of the fingers (see figures and column 2, lines 29-42). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the glove of Materon with the exposed finger sleeves as taught by Lento, since the exposed finger sleeves would provide a glove that assists with holding a writing tool while providing breathability and allowing to retain tactile contact with the fingers and the writing implement (column 2, lines 40-42). In regard to claim 8, Materon teaches a grip assist glove (10) comprising: a grip assist glove having finger sleeves, a palm side portion, a back side portion, a wrist covering portion, an outer layer, and a webbing (see finger sleeves, palm, back and wrist in figures 1 and 2, inner layer is glove layer 12, webbing is fastener: 44 as seen in figure 1); wherein said finger sleeves having a thumb sleeve and an index finger sleeve extending from said palm side portion (see finger and thumb sleeves in figure 1 and 2); wherein said palm side portion covers a palm region of a hand of a user and said back side portion covers a posterior region of the hand of the user (see figures 1 and 2); wherein said webbing (Velcro sleeve: 44) extends between and connects the thumb sleeve and the index finger sleeve (connection at 40 and 50 see figures 1 and 2, column 2, lines 41-54) and comprises a continuous channel extending along a length of the webbing between a top opening and a bottom opening in the webbing (see figure 1); and wherein the webbing is configured to retain a portion of a utensil within the continuous channel (see figure 1, column 2, lines 37-40). However, Materon fails to teach the glove having a top opening, wherein said top opening having an opening for a wearer’s middle finger, ring finger, and pinky finger to extend therethrough and the continuous channel webbing specifically being flexible such that it conforms the continuous channel to a shape of a utensil mounted within the continuous channel. Lento teaches a glove for assisting with holding an item (see figures 1) wherein the glove has a top opening for a wearer’s middle finger, ring finger and pinky finger to extend (see figures and column 2, lines 29-42); and wherein an continuous channel made from an elastic band holds a drum stick in place during use, wherein the continuous channel is made out of a flexible elastic material so that it conforms the channel to a shape of the drum stick mounted within the continuous channel (column 3, lines 12-15 and 56-66). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the glove of Materon with the exposed finger sleeves and flexible, elastic band channel as taught by Lento, since the glove of Materon having exposed finger sleeves would provide a glove that assists with holding a writing tool while providing breathability and allowing to retain tactile contact with the fingers and the writing implement (column 2, lines 40-42), while the flexible elastic band of the channel would hold the utensil therein in a secure and flexible manner. In regard to claim 12, Lento teaches a glove for assisting with holding and item (see figures 1) wherein each said finger sleeve covers a first portion of the fingers of the wearer and exposes a distal phalangeal second portion of the fingers (see figures and column 2, lines 29-42). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the glove of Materon with the exposed finger sleeves as taught by Lento, since the exposed finger sleeves on the glove of Materon would provide a glove that assists with holding a writing tool while providing breathability and allowing to retain tactile contact with the fingers and the writing implement (Lento: column 2, lines 40-42). In regard to claim 15, Materon teaches a grip assist glove (10) comprising: a glove having finger sleeves, a palm side portion, a back side portion, a wrist covering portion, an outer layer, an inner layer, and a webbing (see finger sleeves, palm, back and wrist in figures 1 and 2, inner layer is glove layer 12 and outer layer is Velcro: 40, 50 and/or wrist strap 32, webbing is fastener: 44 as seen in figure 1); wherein said finger sleeves having a thumb sleeve and an index finger sleeve extending from said palm side portion (see finger and thumb sleeves in figure 1 and 2); wherein said palm side portion covers a palm region of a hand of a user and said back side portion covers a posterior region of the hand of the user (see figures 1 and 2); and wherein said webbing (Velcro sleeve: 44) extends between and connects the thumb sleeve and the index finger sleeve (connection at 40 and 50 see figures 1 and 2, column 2, lines 41-54) and comprises a continuous channel extending along a length of the webbing between a top opening and a bottom opening in the webbing (see figure 1); and wherein the webbing is configured to retain a portion of a utensil within the continuous channel (see figure 1, column 2, lines 37-40). However, Materon fails to teach the glove having a top opening, wherein said top opening having an opening for a wearer’s middle finger, ring finger, and pinky finger to extend therethrough and the continuous channel webbing specifically being flexible such that it conforms the channel to a shape of a utensil mounted within the channel. Lento teaches a glove for assisting with holding an item (see figures 1) wherein the glove has a top opening for a wearer’s middle finger, ring finger and pinky finger to extend (see figures and column 2, lines 29-42); and wherein a continuous channel made from an elastic band holds a drum stick in place during use, wherein the continuous channel is made out of a flexible elastic material so that it conforms the channel to a shape of the drum stick mounted within the continuous channel (column 3, lines 12-15 and 56-66). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the glove of Materon with the exposed finger sleeves and flexible, elastic band channel as taught by Lento, since the glove of Materon having exposed finger sleeves would provide a glove that assists with holding a writing tool while providing breathability and allowing to retain tactile contact with the fingers and the writing implement (column 2, lines 40-42), while the flexible elastic band of the channel would hold the utensil therein in a secure and flexible manner. In regard to claim 19, Lento teaches a glove for assisting with holding and item (see figures 1) wherein each said finger sleeve covers a first portion of the fingers of the wearer and exposes a distal phalangeal second portion of the fingers (see figures and column 2, lines 29-42). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the glove of Materon with the exposed finger sleeves as taught by Lento, since the exposed finger sleeves on the glove of Materon would provide a glove that assists with holding a writing tool while providing breathability and allowing to retain tactile contact with the fingers and the writing implement (Lento: column 2, lines 40-42). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 EST. 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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached on (571)272-5559. 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. ALISSA L. HOEY Primary Examiner Art Unit 3732 /ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 14, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 01, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 05, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 27, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 15, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12538950
Facemasks and Method for Manufacturing the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12538952
Personal Protective Devices With Carrying Bags
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12538953
REDUCED FABRIC OUTDOOR PROTECTIVE GARMENT-LIKE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12527369
Safety Vest with Protection Plates
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12478115
Bath Robe Towel Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
44%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+31.8%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1022 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