Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 15, 2026
Application No. 18/456,948

PROTECTIVE SPORTS EQUIPMENT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 28, 2023
Priority
Sep 01, 2022 — provisional 63/403,097
Examiner
QUINN, RICHALE LEE
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Sport Maska Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
51%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 51% of resolved cases
51%
Career Allowance Rate
464 granted / 904 resolved
-18.7% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
929
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.8%
-36.2% vs TC avg
§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
§112
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 904 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 12-13, 17 are withdrawn. Claims 18-20 are cancelled. Claims 1-11, and 14-16 have been examined on the merits. 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. Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Aurum (US 2010/0306898). The device of Aurum teaches, With respect to claim 1, A protective sports equipment for protecting a body part of a wearer (106), comprising: an inner layer (inner portion of 104); and a suspended panel (108b)located inwardly of the inner layer (Figure 1b) and connected thereto at first and second locations (left and right sides, 105a, 105b) , the suspended panel being tensioned and defining a space with the inner layer (Figure 1b, para 0023-0024), the space being located between the first and second locations and between the suspended panel and the inner layer (Figure 1b), the suspension panel having a tension configured to define a flow passage for air in the space between the suspended panel and the inner layer when the wearer is wearing the protective sports equipment (Figure 1b) It is noted that the language “configured to define a flow passage for air in the space” is a functional recitation. The prior art teaches a flexible band extended at its full length and attached at each end creating tension, and allowing a space between the upper end of the band and the inner layer of the protection device, allowing space and air to travel, meeting the claim language as currently presented;, a length of the suspended panel (between horizontal ends) being less than a distance between the first and second locations (at 105a, 106b) The length along a surface of the inner layer to create the tension (Figure 1b). With respect to claim 2, further comprising a first portion (104 top area) adapted to cover a joint of the body part of the wearer (the upper portion of 104, covers the sagittal suture), and a second portion extending away from the first portion (lower portion of 104), the suspended panel being located in the second portion (Figure 1b). With respect to claim 3, wherein the suspended panel is further connected to the inner layer at a third location (108a) located between the first location and the second location (Figure 1b). With respect to claim 8, wherein the suspended panel is connected to the inner layer on a majority of a perimeter of the suspended panel (Figure 1a). With respect to claim 9, wherein the suspended panel extends over a majority of the inner layer along at least a horizontal axis (Figure 1a, 1b). With respect to claim 10, further comprising an outer shell (outer layer 104) defining at least one opening (103), the inner layer being connected to and disposed inwardly from the outer shell (Figure 1a, 1b), and the at least one opening of the outer shell being in fluid communication with the space to provide airflow into the space (Figure 1a, 1b). 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. Claim(s) 4-6is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aurum in view of Burkhardt (US 2023/0189910). The device of Aumur substantially discloses the claimed invention including an elastic suspended panel, but is lacking a greater stretch in one direction. The device of Burkhardt et al. With respect to claim 4, wherein the suspended panel extends (310) between a first end of the protective sports equipment and a second end (left and right sides) of the protective sports equipment, the suspended panel being deformable by a first amount in a first direction defined generally between the first end and the second end of the protective sports equipment (para 0058), and is further deformable by a second amount in a second direction generally transverse to the first direction (para 0058) the first amount being greater than the second amount (para 0058). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the material taught by Burkhardt in order to provide improved fit and recovery for sustained use over time. With respect to claim 5, wherein one of the first end and the second end of the protective sports equipment corresponds to one of the first and second locations where the suspended panel is connected to the inner layer (Aurum, Figure 1a, 1b). With respect to claim 6, wherein the suspended panel is shorter than the inner layer in at least one of the first and second directions (Figures 1a, 1b). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7, 11, 14, 15 and 16 are is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Please Note, the art of recorded cited in the PTO-892 may be relevant to the features of the invention both claimed and unclaimed or are relevant to the overall inventive concept. The best art has been set forward in the office action, as determined by the examiner and the art references provided are to establish other significant and relevant art and to promote compact prosecution. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHALE L QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-8689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am -5pm. 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 Ostrup can be reached at 5712725559. 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. RICHALE LEE. QUINN Primary Examiner Art Unit 3765 /RICHALE L QUINN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 28, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Oct 27, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 20, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Mar 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 15, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 21, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12660878
STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENT FOR A MOTOR HELMET WITH AUTOMATED VISOR
3y 9m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12653261
ARTICLE OF HEADGEAR, MOUNTING CLIPS, AND ACCESSORIES
1y 0m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12648608
HEARING PROTECTION APPARATUS
2y 8m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12642321
INNER DUTY BELT AND RELATED SYSTEM
3y 6m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12629076
Screen Printed Electrodes For An Electrocardiogram Article
4y 3m to grant Granted May 19, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
51%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+30.1%)
3y 0m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 904 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