Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 17, 2026
Application No. 18/646,378

GLOVE FOR PREVENTING AND RELIEVING TENOSYNOVITIS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 25, 2024
Priority
Jan 06, 2023 — CN 202310018261.5 +1 more
Examiner
BALLER, KELSEY E
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Shanghai University Of Medicine & Health Sciences
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allowance Rate
132 granted / 212 resolved
+2.3% vs TC avg
Strong +60% interview lift
Without
With
+59.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
236
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§102
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
§112
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 212 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 Objections Claims 1 and 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, lines 4 and 9 "the mounting bases" is suggested to be changed to --the plurality of mounting bases--. In claim 3, line 3 "the slotted holes" is suggested to be changed to --the two slotted holes--. In claim 4, line 4 "the through holes" is suggested to be changed to --the two through holes--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a warming assembly and a control assembly in claim 1. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 1, lines 4-5 the limitation “a lower end of the insertion block” is unclear if this is one of the insertion blocks or each insertion block in each of the mounting bases. In claim 1, line 5 the limitation “a lower part of the insertion block” is unclear if this is one of the insertion blocks or each insertion block in each of the mounting bases. All remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency of a rejected base claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Bravo (2021/0045963), does not specifically disclose the claimed device as presented in claim 1. Bravo discloses a glove (12, fig 1), comprising a glove body (14/16/18, fig 1), wherein a hand warming assembly (41, fig 3) is arranged at a lower part of the glove body (see fig 4 with the 41 on a lower part of 12); a control assembly (40, fig 4) and a plurality of mounting bases (52, fig 1) are arranged at an upper part of the glove body (see 40 and 20 on an upper part of 12 in fig 4); and massage units (20, fig 4) accessible in the mounting bases (see [0027]). However, Bravo fails to disclose an insertion block is arranged on each of the mounting bases; an adsorption magnetic ring is arranged at a lower end of the insertion block; a sliding rod elastically slides at a lower part of the insertion block; a heating plate is arranged at a lower end of the sliding rod; a plurality of massage beads are arranged at a lower end of the heating plate; a vibrator is arranged at an upper end of the heating plate; each of the mounting bases comprises a clamping sleeve, the lower part of the insertion block is slidably provided inside the clamping sleeve, and an inner wall of the clamping sleeve is circumferentially provided with a limiting magnetic ring; the adsorption magnetic ring is located at an upper end of the limiting magnetic ring; an outer wall of the clamping sleeve is circumferentially provided with a fixing plate; and the clamping sleeve and the fixing plate are both located inside the glove body and to modify would be improper hindsight. Therefore, claims 1-10 have been found allowable since any conclusion of obviousness would be based on improper hindsight reasoning, using knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dean (6,401,252), Duboff (6,748,604), Tsai (2008/0216207), Ptah (10,383,378), and Sanders (2022/0226189) are cited to show massage gloves. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E BALLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4 PM. 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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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. /KELSEY E BALLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /TU A VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 25, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12734317
SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF AEROSOL DELIVERY WITH AIRFLOW REGULATION
4y 8m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12734281
Improved Cupping Device, System, and Features
3y 7m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12734095
MASSAGE DEVICE
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12690703
NECK PILLOW
4y 9m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12648889
PORTABLE UPPER LIMB REHABILITATION MECHANICAL ARM WITH GRADING ADJUSTMENT TRAINING FUNCTION
3y 10m to grant Granted Jun 09, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+59.8%)
3y 1m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 212 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