Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/600,965

BASEBALL BATTING TRAINING EQUIPMENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 11, 2024
Examiner
ARYANPOUR, MITRA
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
606 granted / 1077 resolved
-13.7% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1113
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
38.0%
-2.0% vs TC avg
§102
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
§112
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1077 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 . 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. Claims 1, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson et al (11,097,174) hereinafter (Paulson) in view of Purcell (6,159,111). Claim 1, Paulson discloses a baseball batting training equipment, comprising: a support base/structure, comprising a vertical tube (receiving tube 4 having one or more extension arms 5; figure 1) and a support structure (base 2) secured to the vertical tube (38; figure 1A) to support the vertical tube in a standing position; mounting base (mount 15/mount lock 16 having a pin 17 and pass through aperture 18; figure 4A which fits over a mount receiver 22; figure 8), fixed to the vertical tube(4/5); a connecting rod, comprising a rod body (swing arm 12) made of an elastic material (the rod may be a spring 14 covered with protective rubber sleeve 42 or the rod may be a spring-like elastic component; column 5, lines 42-50, 59-64 and column 7, lines 15-24), one end of the rod body fixed to the mounting base (15), and another end of the rod body (12) extending upward for a specified distance (Note: any distance may be considered “a specified distance”); and a ball (ball 13) to be hit, fixed to the other end of the rod body (12; figure 1B). Paulson discloses the claimed device with the exception of the support structure being in the form of a tripod. However, as disclosed by Purcell (figure 1) it is known in the art to utilize a support structure in the shape of a tripod. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used such a support structure for Paulson’s assembly given that Purcell teaches such as support structure is light-weight, easily assembled and conveniently transported however, weighted support structures can be instead of tripods. Claim 9, Paulson as modified in view Purcell further shows the support structure comprises a fixing ring (13; figure 1), an adjustment fixture (tubing 7; figure 1), three support rods (three legs 9), and three linking rods (three limiting legs 15), the fixing ring is fixed to a bottom end of the vertical tube, the adjustment fixture is locked to the vertical tube, one end of each of the three support rods is connected to the adjustment fixture, one end of each of the three linking rods is connected to the fixing ring, and another end of each of the three linking rods is connected to one of the three support rods (figures 1 and 3). Claim 10, Paulson alone and as modified in view of Purcell show the vertical tube (4/5) comprises an outer tube, an inner tube partially penetrating the outer tube, and a retractable lock (extension arm couplers; figure 8) configured to fix to a relative position of the outer tube and the inner tube. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (9,914,034). Claim 8, Paulson as modified above discloses the claimed device with the exception of the ball having a through hole for receiving an end of the rod body to form a projection post and a transverse second limit bar for securing the end of the rod body at a second end. However, as disclosed by Lee it is known in the art to provide a ball (18) having a through hole (68) for receiving a rod body (12) having a projection post (20) and extends out of the through hole and is secured in place using a limit bar (the end of 20 is larger than the through hole and it is transverse positioned therein). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-7 are 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. Kanner (US2015/0231470 A1); Meier et al (US2013/0178313 A1). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITRA ARYANPOUR whose telephone number is (571) 272-4405. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon, Thurs, Fri 8:00am to 4:00pm, Wed 8:00-2:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached on 571-272-4463. 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. /MITRA ARYANPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /ma/ 06 March 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 11, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594486
BILLIARDS BALL RACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576323
BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL HITTING TRAINING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569737
REBOUNDER SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569743
Portable Sports Rack And Delivery System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12485327
CRICKET BAT SWING TRAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+33.8%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1077 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