Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/696,332

HANDGRIP ASSEMBLY FOR A VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 27, 2024
Examiner
ROGERS, ADAM D
Art Unit
3617
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Indian Motorcycle International LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1117 granted / 1360 resolved
+30.1% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
1400
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
33.7%
-6.3% vs TC avg
§102
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
§112
38.3%
-1.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1360 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 23, 2026 has been entered. 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. Claim 16 is 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. Claim 16, line 1, recites “a guard” which is indefinite because it is unclear what the difference is between the guard from claim 16 and the guard from claim 12, line 6. Is the Applicant referring to the same guard in both claims? Does the handgrip assembly have two separate guards? Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1-3 and 12-16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lumpkin (US 2004/0068844 A1). Regarding claim 1, Lumpkin discloses a steering assembly for a vehicle (a bicycle or motorcycle), comprising: a handlebar (12) operably coupled to at least one ground engaging member (one of the wheels of the bicycle or the motorcycle) to steer the at least one ground engaging member; and a handgrip (10) operably coupled to the handlebar, the handgrip comprising: a clamp (54); a guard (52) configured to receive the clamp; a substrate (18) configured to receive the clamp and the guard, wherein the clamp is configured to engage the handlebar; and the substrate comprises a plurality of channels (28); and an outer portion (20) configured to cover: a portion (an outer surface of 18) of the substrate; and a portion (the right side portion of 52 in Figure 1) of the guard, wherein the outer portion comprises a plurality of ribs (Paragraph 0017 discloses “During injection molding of the over molding elastomer 20, a lengthwise segment of the cylindrical liner 18 between the annular flange 48 and the arcuate flange 42 is coated with the over molding and the over molding is allowed to flow into the elongate slots 28 within the lengthwise segment of the cylindrical liner 18. The over molding is bound to the cylindrical liner 18 to prevent relative movement therebetween.” thus the material that flows into each 28 is viewed as being a rib) configured to be received in the plurality of channels. Regarding claim 2, Lumpkin discloses that the clamp includes an aperture (the hole in 70 that 58 fits into) configured to receive a screw (62). Regarding claim 3, Lumpkin discloses that the outer portion conceals a portion (the side of the clamp that is directly adjacent the end of 20 that is closest to 54) of the clamp. Regarding claim 12, Lumpkin discloses a handgrip assembly, comprising: a substrate (18) configured in a generally cylindrical shape (see Figure 3), wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of channels (28); a clamp (54) configured to mate with an end portion (the left end of 18 in Figure 3) of the substrate, wherein the clamp is positioned between a first flange (40) of the substrate and a retention feature (42) of the substrate; a guard (52) configured to receive the clamp; a fastener (62) coupled to the clamp and configured to move the clamp from an engaged position (the position where 54 is tightened onto a handlebar) to a disengaged position (the position where 54 is not tightened onto a handlebar); and an outer portion (20) configured to cover: a portion (an outer surface of 18) of the substrate; and a portion (the right side portion of 52 in Figure 1) of the guard. Regarding claim 13, Lumpkin discloses an overmold grip (20) configured to couple with the substrate. Regarding claim 14, Lumpkin discloses that the overmold grip is configured to conceal a portion of the clamp (the side of the clamp that is directly adjacent the end of 20 that is closest to 54 is concealed by 20 thus meeting the claim limitation). Regarding claim 15, Lumpkin discloses that an outer portion (the outer surface of 20) of the overmold grip has a corrugated surface (see the recessed lines on the outer surface of 20). Regarding claim 16, Lumpkin discloses that a guard (52) is positioned intermediate the clamp and the overmold grip (52 can be viewed as being located between a portion of 52 and a portion of 20 depending on the viewpoint thus meeting the claim limitation). 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. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lumpkin (US 2004/0068844 A1) in view of Yu (US 2004/0068844 A1). Regarding claim 4, Lumpkin discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the outer portion includes an aperture configured to receive the screw. Yu teaches an outer portion (50) that includes an aperture (502) to receive a screw (44). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer portion of Lumpkin to have an aperture to receive the screw, as taught by Yu, for the purpose of providing a stronger connection between the outer portion, the substrate, and the clamp. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lumpkin (US 2004/0068844 A1) in view of Wessel (US 6,615,688 B2). Regarding claim 6, Lumpkin discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the clamp is positioned adjacent an inner end of the handlebar. Wessel teaches a clamp (12) that is positioned adjacent an inner end of a handlebar (Column 3 / Line 12) (the end of 2 is closed thus 12 must be located adjacent to the center of the handlebar). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clamp of Lumpkin to be positioned adjacent an inner end of the handlebar, as taught by Wessel, for the purpose of aiding in preventing the handgrip from sliding downwards to the center of the handlebar thus putting the handgrip at a less desirable position. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lumpkin (US 2004/0068844 A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2007/0007266 A1). Regarding claim 18, Lumpkin discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the substrate comprises an opening configured to receive a plurality of wires. Sasaki et al. teaches a substrate (1) that comprises an opening (1b) configured to receive a plurality of wires (5a, 5b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate of Lumpkin to have an opening configured to receive a plurality of wires, as taught by Sasaki et al., for the purpose of providing a structure that allows wires of a heater unit to be provided in the handgrip thus allowing the handgrip to be heated. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-11 are allowed over the prior art of record. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argued on Page 6 of the Remarks that “However, nowhere does Lumpkin disclose anything about a guard that receives a clamp where the guard and the clamp are covered by an overmold”. Element 52 of Lumpkin is viewed as being a guard given the scope of what can be considered a guard. A portion of element 52 is covered by element 20 (the viewed substrate) as shown in Figures 1 and 2 because the right side of element 52 is covered by 20. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM EST. 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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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. /ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 27, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Oct 30, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jan 21, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 23, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601326
Torque Driven Dynamic Generator with Inertia Sustaining Drive
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600400
STEERING WHEEL GRIP ASSEMBLY FOR AUTOMOBILES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600399
STEERING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591264
DETACHABLE MULTI FUNCTIONAL CONTROL KNOB ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576963
PEDAL CARTRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+22.6%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1360 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