Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/542,679

Shield Harp

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 17, 2023
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
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 . Specification Content of Specification The specification does not have a DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter. Please see the brief description of the specifications in the cited references. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claimed elements are recited in the specification. However, the claims elements are not described or labeled in the specification. Therefor it is unclear what the applicant is referring to. An example of this is “the battle shield profile”, “the neck”, and “the soundbox”. The applicant is behooved to review the specification to ensure that all of the claimed elements are identified and described in the specification. 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, 3-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE2442586 in view of DE2442586 in view of Marx (US 1190782). Regarding claim 1, DE2442586 discloses the use of a harp comprising a frame (not labeled, the area the strings are attached to), a first array of strings arranged by length and a second array of strings arranged by length wherein said first array of strings becomes progressively longer from back to front, and said second array of strings becomes progressively shorter from back to front (see the arrays of the string positions in figure 1). DE2442586 does not disclose the strings positioned based on first and second musical scales spanning at least one octave. Marx discloses the use of a harp with strings that are arranged based on musical scaled spanning at least one octave (page 1, column 1, lines 10-15). 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 DE2442586 to include the string positioned by length based on a musical scale spanning at least one octave as recited in Marx in order to achieve a specific desired sound. Regarding claim 3, DE2442586 and Marx do not disclose the use of a heater battle shield shaped profile. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a specific shape, 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 4, DE2442586 and Marx do not disclose the use of a first array of strings that comprises a diatonic scale, and said second array of strings comprises a pentatonic scale. 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 DE2442586 to include the strings positioned by length based on a musical scale spanning at least one octave as recited in Marx; and the use of diatonic and pentatonic scales since the use of both scales are conventional and well known in the art. Regarding claims 5 and 6, DE2442586 and Marx do not disclose specific string colors. 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 DE2442586 to include the string positioned by length based on a musical scale spanning at least one octave as recited in Marx and the use of colored strings colored in a specific manner since the use of colored strings is a tool conventionally used in the art to teach music. Regarding claim 7, DE2442586 and Marx do not disclose specific scales. 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 DE2442586 to include the string positioned by length based on a musical scale spanning at least one octave as recited in Marx and the use of arrays of strings that comprises a diatonic scale since the use of diatonic scales is conventional and well known in the art. Regarding claim 9, Marx discloses arrays of strings that are in line with each other on the same plane (see the string positions in figure 1). Regarding claim 10, Marx discloses arrays of strings arrays that are offset from each other (see the string positions in figure 1). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE2442586 in view of DE2442586 in view of Marx (US 1190782) and Chen (US 20050223873). Regarding claim 11, DE2442586 discloses the use of a harp comprising a frame (not labeled, the area the strings are attached to), a first array of strings arranged by length and a second array of strings arranged by length wherein said first array of strings becomes progressively longer from back to front, and said second array of strings becomes progressively shorter from back to front (see the arrays of the string positions in figure 1). DE2442586 does not disclose the strings positioned based on first and second musical scales spanning at least one octave. Marx discloses the use of a harp with strings that are arranged based on musical scaled spanning at least one octave (page 1, column 1, lines 10-15). DE2442586 and Marx do not disclose the use of string arranged in a curve. 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 DE2442586 to include the string positioned by length based on a musical scale spanning at least one octave as recited in Marx and curved string array that is curved in order to provide a device with the option of having adjustable string positions. The patentability of claims 2 and 8 cannot be determined based on the merits at this time. The applicant is behooved to resolve the 35 USC 112 rejections in order to provide clarity for the claimed subject matter. 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

Dec 17, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 29, 2025
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