Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/667,757

BLOCKING PAD AND METHOD FOR PREVENTING INJURY TO A USER FROM A SPECIAL INDIVIDUAL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 17, 2024
Examiner
ANDERSON, MEGAN M
Art Unit
3784
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Grafton Schools Inc.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
544 granted / 724 resolved
+5.1% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
746
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
§102
27.0%
-13.0% vs TC avg
§112
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 724 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This is the non-final rejection, after an request for continued examination, based on the 18/667,757 application filed on 05/17/2024 and which claims as amended on 02/17/2026 have been considered in the ensuing action. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Response to Amendment The amendment to the claims has been sufficient to overcome the claim objection. The amendments to the claims have not been sufficient to overcome the prior art of record. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16- 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morgia (US 5,232,368) in view of Deluxe Punch Shield ( https://www.amazon.com/Deluxe-Punch-Shield-Kickboxing-Martial/dp/B005ESOWZM). Regarding claim 1: Morgia discloses a first edge (top edge), a second edge (bottom edge), a third edge (left edge), and a fourth edge (right edge), the first edge opposite the second edge (see Figure 1), the third edge opposite the fourth edge (see Figure 1); a pad (board 11 that is composed of foam rubber) disposed between the first edge, second edge, third edge, and fourth edge (see Figure 1); a first top handle (handle 26) aligned with the first edge (see figure 4), a first side handle (handle 22) aligned with the third edge (see Figure 4), and a second side (handle 23) handle aligned with the fourth edge (see Figure 4), the handles are aligned for two-handed rapid deployment by the user (see Figures 1-4; the user would be capable of holding the device with two hands; the Examiner notes that “for two-handed rapid deployment” is intended use); wherein the overall configuration of the pad and placement of the handles allow the blocking pad to be quickly utilized to prevent the special individual from harming the user or a head, face, hands, feet or sensitive areas of the body of the special individual(see Figures 1-4; The Examiner notes that the limitation is merely intended use and the apparatus can be used in the claimed manner). Morgia further discloses that the exterior surface of the pad is smooth and flexible to protect the special individual during strikes (the striking elements 12, 12’, 12’’, 12’’’ are removably attached to the pad, the pad itself has a smooth exterior that is flexible, see Figures 1-4; Morgia discloses that the exterior surface is fabric covering a resilient material), and wherein the exterior surface is colored to reduce aggression and anxiety in the special individual to prevent strikes (the Examiner notes that the device has a color, as all objects have a color and the phrase “to reduce aggression and anxiety the special individual to prevent strikes” is merely intended use). The Examiner notes that the limitation of “to protect the special individual during strikes” ,“the handles are aligned for two-handed rapid deployment by the user” and “wherein the exterior surface is colored to reduce aggression and anxiety the special individual to prevent strikes” are merely functional language/intended use. It makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. [AltContent: textbox (Figure 1)] PNG media_image1.png 350 342 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 302 350 media_image2.png Greyscale Morgia fails to disclose that the edges of the pad are rounded. Deluxe Punch Shield is a similar blocking pad that has rounded edges. PNG media_image3.png 376 421 media_image3.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the pad of Morgia to have rounded edges as taught by Deluxe Punch Shield, as an obvious matter of design choice. Regarding claim 2: Morgia as modified disclose that the blocking pad is flat (see Figure 1) to be place between the special individual and a hard surface to protect the special individual from himself/herself (The Examiner notes that this is merely intended use and does not further limit the claim, the apparatus can be used by an attendance of a special individual). The Examiner notes that the limitation of “to be placed between the special individual and a hard surface to protect the special individual from himself/herself” is merely functional language/intended use. It makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Regarding claim 3: Morgia fails to disclose the color of the device, particularly that the pad is blue or green, and that the pad includes a logo or markings for the special individual to focus on rather than hitting user. However, “to calm the special individual and deter aggression” is intended use. The Examiner further notes that “for the special individual to focus on rather than hitting user” is merely functional language/intended use. It makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Deluxe Punch Shield is a similar blocking pad that is blue in color and has a logo. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to modify Morgia to be blue with a logo as taught by Deluxe Punch Shield as an obvious matter of design choice. The color of the device lacks criticality. Regarding claim 4: Morgia as modified disclose that the pad is connected to a rigid support member (support 18). Regarding claim 5: Morgia as modified disclose that the first top handle, the first side handle, and the second side handle extend from a rear surface of the pad (see Figure 4). Regarding claim 6: Morgia as modified disclose that the pad is rectangularly shaped (see Figure 4). Regarding claim 7: Morgia as modified disclose that the pad includes an internal support (support 18 is internal to the perimeter and has therefore been considered an internal support). Regarding claim 9: Morgia as modified disclose that an interior portion of the pad is at least partially composed of foam (Morgia discloses that the pad is composed of foam rubber, see column 1 lines 56-59). Regarding claim 10: Morgia as modified disclose that the pad includes a cover (in the broadest reasonable interpretation the Velcro covering of the front of the pad has been considered a cover “Sidewalls 20 and at least a portion of the periphery of front surface 14 are covered with VELCRO.RTM. pile fabric 21 which may be glued or otherwise affixed in covering relation thereto” see columns 2-3, lines 68 and 1-3) protecting the interior portion of the pad. Regarding claim 11: Morgia discloses a first edge (top edge), a second edge (bottom edge), a third edge (left edge), and a fourth edge (right edge), the first edge opposite the second edge (see Figure 1), the third edge opposite the fourth edge (see Figure 1); a pad (board 11 that is composed of foam rubber) disposed between the first edge, second edge, third edge, and fourth edge (see Figure 1); at least a pair of vertical handles (handles 22 and 23) aligned with the third edge and the fourth edge (see Figure 4); wherein the overall configuration of the pad and placement of the vertical handles allow the blocking pad to be quickly utilized to prevent the special individual from harming the attendant or the special individual in open areas and close quarter situations(see Figures 1-4; The Examiner notes that the limitation is merely intended use and the apparatus can be used in the claimed manner). Morgia further discloses that the exterior surface of the pad is smooth and flexible to protect the special individual during strikes (the striking elements 12, 12’, 12’’, 12’’’ are removably attached to the pad, the pad itself has a smooth exterior that is flexible, see Figures 1-4), and wherein the exterior surface is colored to reduce aggression and anxiety in the special individual deterring aggression and strikes (the Examiner notes that the device has a color, as all objects have a color and the phrase “to reduce aggression and anxiety in the special individual deterring aggression and strikes” is merely intended use). The Examiner notes that the limitation of “to protect the special individual during strikes” and “to reduce aggression and anxiety in the special individual deterring aggression and strikes” merely functional language/intended use. It makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. [AltContent: textbox (Figure 1)] PNG media_image1.png 350 342 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 302 350 media_image2.png Greyscale Morgia fails to disclose that the edges of the pad are rounded. Deluxe Punch Shield is a similar blocking pad that has rounded edges. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the pad of Morgia to have rounded edges as taught by Deluxe Punch Shield, as an obvious matter of design choice. Regarding claim 12: Morgia as modified disclose a first top handle (handle 26) aligned with the first edge (see Figure 4). Regarding claim 13: Morgia fails to disclose the color of the device, particularly that the pad is blue or green, and that the pad includes a logo or markings for the special individual to focus on rather than hitting user. The Examiner notes that “to calm the special individual and deter aggression” is merely functional language/intended use. It makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Deluxe Punch Shield is a similar blocking pad that is blue in color and has a logo. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to modify Morgia to be blue with a logo as taught by Deluxe Punch Shield as an obvious matter of design choice. The color of the device lacks criticality. Regarding claim 14: Morgia as modified disclose that the pad is connected to a rigid support member (support 18). Regarding claim 16: Morgia as modified disclose that the vertical handles extend from a rear surface of the pad (see Figure 4). Regarding claim 17: Morgia as modified disclose that an interior portion of the pad is at partially composed of foam (Morgia discloses that the pad is composed of foam rubber, see column 1 lines 56-59). Regarding claim 18: Morgia as modified disclose that the pad includes a cover (in the broadest reasonable interpretation the Velcro covering of the front of the pad has been considered a cover “Sidewalls 20 and at least a portion of the periphery of front surface 14 are covered with VELCRO.RTM. pile fabric 21 which may be glued or otherwise affixed in covering relation thereto” see columns 2-3, lines 68 and 1-3) protecting the interior portion of the pad. Regarding claim 19: Morgia discloses a first edge (top edge), a second edge (bottom edge), a third edge (left edge), and a fourth edge (right edge), the first edge opposite the second edge (see Figure 1), the third edge opposite the fourth edge (see Figure 1); a pad (board 11 that is composed of foam rubber) disposed between the first edge, second edge, third edge, and fourth edge (see Figure 1), wherein the pad includes a cover (in the broadest reasonable interpretation the Velcro covering of the front of the pad has been considered a cover “Sidewalls 20 and at least a portion of the periphery of front surface 14 are covered with VELCRO.RTM. pile fabric 21 which may be glued or otherwise affixed in covering relation thereto” see columns 2-3, lines 68 and 1-3) on an exterior portion of the pad; handles including a first top handle (handle 26) aligned with the first edge (see Figure 4), a first side handle (handle 22) aligned with the third edge (see Figure 4), and a second side (handle 23) handle aligned with the fourth edge (see Figure 4), the handles are aligned for two-handed rapid deployment by the user (see Figures 1-4, the device is capable of being held in two hands in a rapid fashion); wherein the pad and the handles allow the blocking pad to be quickly utilized to prevent the special individual from harming the user or his/her head, face, hands, feet or sensitive areas of the body (see Figures 1-4; The Examiner notes that the limitation is merely intended use and the apparatus can be used in the claimed manner). Morgia further discloses that the exterior surface of the pad is smooth and flexible to protect the special individual during strikes (the striking elements 12, 12’, 12’’, 12’’’ are removably attached to the pad, the pad itself has a smooth exterior that is flexible, see Figures 1-4). The Examiner notes that the limitation of “to protect the special individual during strikes” and “the handles are aligned for two-handed rapid deployment by the user are merely functional language/intended use. It makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. [AltContent: textbox (Figure 1)] PNG media_image1.png 350 342 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 302 350 media_image2.png Greyscale Morgia fails to disclose that the edges of the pad are rounded and a logo or markings for the special individual to focus strikes on rather than hitting a user. Deluxe Punch Shield is a similar blocking pad that has rounded edges with a logo. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the pad of Morgia to have rounded edges and a logo as taught by Deluxe Punch Shield, as an obvious matter of design choice. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “for the special individual to focus on rather than hitting the user” are merely functional language/intended use. It makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Regarding claim 20: Morgia as modified discloses that wherein the first top handle, the first side handle, and the second side handle extend from a rear surface of the pad (see Figure 4) and that the pad includes a logo or markings for the special individual to focus on rather than hitting the user (see rejection of claim 19 above). Morgia fails to disclose the color of the device, particularly that the pad is blue or green. Deluxe Punch Shield is a similar blocking pad that is blue in color. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to modify Morgia to be blue as taught by Deluxe Punch Shield as an obvious matter of design choice. The color of the device lacks criticality. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8 and 15 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. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the arguments stating that the cited references fail to teach/teach away from the therapeutic, de-escalatory and injury prevention features of the recited claim, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that “for preventing injury to a user resulting from strikes received from a special individual who suffers from emotional and behavioral challenges” is intended use. It makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. In this case, the intended use of the device does NOT result in a structural different between the claimed invention and the prior art. With respect to the arguments that the prior art does not teach rounded edges, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Deluxe Punch Shield teaches rounded edges, see annotated Fig. below. The Examiner further notes that the claim language does not preclude “rigid corners’, however, neither devices of the prior art teach rigid corners. [AltContent: textbox (Rounded Edges)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image3.png 376 421 media_image3.png Greyscale With respect to the arguments addressing the exterior surface of the pad, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Morgia does teach the pad is smooth and flexible and all devices have a color. The intended use of “to reduce aggression and anxiety in the special individual to prevent strikes” is intended use, as discussed above. The claims must have structural limitations that distinguish over the prior art. With respect to the handles, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of “two handed rapid deployment by the user” is intended use, as stated above. Morgia in view of Deluxe Punch Shield teach the handles as structurally claimed. With respect to the arguments addressing the overall configuration of the pad and handles, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation being argued is intended use, please see above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6531. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6 a.m. -4 p.m. (Arizona). 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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4966. 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. /Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 17, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 10, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 12, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
May 20, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
May 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 04, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 17, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599826
RAGE RELIEVING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12576299
EXERCISE AND THERAPY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564759
STAIR STEPPER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558584
Resistance adjustment device of exercise apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12558592
TREADMILL CAPABLE OF ADJUSTING SLOPE RISING AND FALLING BY SCREW ROD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+27.1%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 724 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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