Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/589,979

SKI PROTECTION DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 28, 2024
Examiner
WALTERS, JOHN DANIEL
Art Unit
3613
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
1029 granted / 1278 resolved
+28.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1310
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
§102
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1278 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 . DETAILED ACTION Claims 1 – 6 have been examined. 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 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kohls (3,948,302). In regard to claim 1, Kohls discloses a ski protection device that is configured to inhibit debris from contacting a ski during transport wherein the ski protection device comprises a body, said body having a wall member wherein said wall member is constructed to form an interior volume, said body having a first end and a second end, said second end of said body having an opening providing access to said interior volume of said body, said body being comprised of a first portion and a second portion, said first portion and said second portion of said body being contiguously formed (Fig. 8, items 12 and 22), an end portion, said end portion being contiguously formed at said second end of said body, said end portion being movable from a first position to a second position (Figs. 8 and 10, item 41), and a strap member, said strap member being secured to said end portion, said strap member configured to surroundably mount said end portion, said strap member operable to maintain said end portion in said second position (Fig. 8, item 42a). 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 2 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohls (3,948,302) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McKay (4,191,233). In regard to claim 3, Kohls discloses wherein in said second position said end portion is folded over against said body proximate said second end thereof wherein said end portion is adjacent said body (column 2, lines 54 – 58). In regard to claim 4, Kohls discloses wherein said second portion of said body has a width that is greater than a width of said first portion of said body (Fig. 8). In regard to claim 6, Kohls discloses wherein the ski protection device facilitates an ability to transport a ski stored in the ski protection device on a conventional roof rack while a ski is disposed within the ski protection device (column 2, lines 8 – 11). Kohls does not disclose the use of thicker material in end portions. In regard to claim 2, McKay discloses a ski protection device comprising an end member, said end member being integrally formed on said first end of said body, said end member being manufactured from a heavier material than said body (Fig. 6, item 26). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the thicker end material, as taught by McKay, to the ski protection device of Kohls, in order to reinforce the area which would come in contact with the pointed ski tips. This would extend the usable life of the device by strengthening the area of sharp/pointed contact to minimize damage from said contact. Kohls in view of McKay does not disclose the use of a specific material. In regard to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the device from nylon, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Welsh (3,336,961) discloses a ski case; Horne (4,715,416) discloses a ski cover; McConnell (5,207,323) discloses a ski sock; Smith (6,736,263) discloses elastic coverings for skis and snowboards; Cordeau (2025/0242228) discloses ski and snowboard tip protection socks. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN DANIEL WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (PT). 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, Allen Shriver can be reached at 303.297.4337. 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. /JOHN D WALTERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600564
RECHARGEABLE POWER SOURCE FOR A LOAD HANDLING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600226
OFF-ROAD VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600398
MULTI-FOLD CHILD CARRIAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594980
UNLOCK DEVICE AND STROLLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595013
ENCLOSED MOBILITY SCOOTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
80%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+5.4%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1278 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