Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/731,631

Double Ended Hand Tool

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 03, 2024
Examiner
EFTA, ALEX B
Art Unit
1745
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
436 granted / 739 resolved
-6.0% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
798
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
54.9%
+14.9% vs TC avg
§102
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 739 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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment Amendment filed 12/17/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claim 1 is cancelled. Claim 2 is pending and amended. No new matter is added. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited art does not teach or suggest a red and green wax in a 1:1 ratio, as is now claimed. Examiner notes that this limitation was not previously presented and will be addressed hereinafter. 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 2 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 2 recites “a green wax and a red wax and a 1:1 ratio of said green wax and said red wax”. While ratios are inherently unitless because they compare amounts of the same unit, the claim still is indefinite because there is no indication which units are being compared. Specifically, the if the ratio is of volumes of waxes, waxes that have different densities will have different masses. If the ratio is of masses of waxes, then the volume of each wax would be different when having different densities. The ratio could also be a molar ratio. Thus, the nominal ratio when comparing different units would change based on the units being compared. Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite. Allowable Subject Matter As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: CHEN discloses a tool (Abstract) comprising a tubular portion, 41, connected to an adhesive sphere protrusion, 43, that is inserted into a connector, 312, located on the tool (Paragraphs [0038]-[0041]). GUPTA discloses that the adhesive is wax and allows the material to be durable enough for repeated use over many applications (Paragraph [0015]). KAPLAN discloses the making of wax shapes (Abstract; Column 2, lines 60-68; Column 3, lines 1-40) to precise shapes by implicitly providing (i.e., preparing) a wax and melting it (Column 4, lines 25-60) and then injecting it into a mold. After injecting the melted wax into the mold, it is cooled and then removed from the mold. RUFF et al. discloses that the shape of the wax tip may be shaped to a point, such as a conical shape (Paragraph [0044]) so that said wax tip can pieces can be held and transported and manipulated by the apparatus (Paragraph [0045]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the wax tip of CHEN in a conical shape, as taught by RUFF et al. so that the tip can then contact a surface of particular size and then be held and manipulated. BAROUH et al. (US 3,974,539) discloses a pick-off device (Abstract) having a wax tip, 16, (Figures 4, 6, 7 and 9). The wax tip can be colored as desired (Column 3, lines 2-20) and may be comprised of two different waxes at a 40:60 ratio. CIERRA (How to use Candle Dye Chips- Using and Mixing Candle Wax Dye Chips for Custom Colors) disclose various wax colors made from mixing separated colored waxes. The Dark Red-Brown color is formed mixing one chip of red wax and 1 chip of Christmas green wax. Thus, it is known that a desired color of wax can be formed using a 1:1 chip ratio of red to green wax. However, the wax mixture of BAROUH et al. isn’t necessarily a 1:1 ratio of waxes and the particular mix is described as providing the desired properties needed for the stated purpose. Moreover, it is unclear if a 1:1 ratio in BAROUH would be suitable for its intended purpose and there is no further teaching or suggestion that simply mixing according to CIERRA could or should be performed. Lastly, it is unclear if one of ordinary skill in the art would look to candle waxes for a teaching of mixing ratio given that the use case is different than that of the previously cited art. Performing such a modification of the cited art with BAROUH and CIERRA would appear to only be performed using the claims as a roadmap, and is therefore impermissible hindsight. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F. 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, Philip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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. /ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 03, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 03, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jun 06, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Dec 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593873
VAPOR GENERATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588704
AEROSOL-GENERATING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589546
FILM ATTACHING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569007
E-CIGARETTE VAPORIZER AND E-CIGARETTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557841
EXTRACTOR FOR AN AEROSOL-GENERATING DEVICE
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+25.9%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 739 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