Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/737,504

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR UNRAVELING BRAIDS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 07, 2024
Examiner
ASQIRIBA, KARIM
Art Unit
3772
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Swella INC.
OA Round
2 (Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
137 granted / 236 resolved
-11.9% vs TC avg
Strong +46% interview lift
Without
With
+45.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
257
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
50.9%
+10.9% vs TC avg
§102
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
§112
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 236 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 . Response to Amendment The amendments filed on July 21, 2025, have been entered. The previously raised drawing objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment submitted by the Applicant on July 21, 2025. The previously raised claim objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment submitted by the Applicant on July 21, 2025. The previously raised claim rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment submitted by the Applicant on July 21, 2025. Drawings The drawings were received on July 21, 2025. These drawings are accepted. 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. Claims 1-5 and 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glucksman et al (US 20030230316 A1, hereinafter “Glucksman”) in view of Bousfield et al (US 7069935 B2, hereinafter “Bousfield). Regarding claim 1. Glucksman discloses a device (abstract and Fig 1-9), comprising: a longitudinally elongated housing (annotated Fig 4, A) comprising a pipe (annotated Fig 4, B) ; a retainer (annotated Fig 5, 68) disposed within the pipe (Fig 4-5); a tine (Fig 5, hook 65) disposed within the pipe (Fig 4-5); and an electromechanical drive configured to move the tine (annotated Fig 4, C which includes motor 30 and ¶0041-0042). PNG media_image1.png 783 585 media_image1.png Greyscale Glucksman is silent the device is configured to unravel a hair braid. Bousfield teaches similar device including a housing (Fig 5, 120) with motor 140 that can be permitted to rotate clockwise or counterclockwise (Col 4 lines 7-11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electromechanical drive motor of Glucksman’s device to rotate clockwise or counterclockwise, as taught by Bousfield. In this instance, rotation of the motor in the opposite direction, which can be either clockwise or counterclockwise direction of the motor, would help the user to remove unwanted stuck hair while braiding the hair in order to meet the user’s needs and preference. Thus, the device is capable to unravel a hair braid during use. Regarding claim 2. Glucksman and Bousfield teach the invention of claim 1. Glucksman further teaches the electromechanical drive comprises an actuator (Fig 5, third gear 62 associated with 21B). Regarding claim 3. Glucksman and Bousfield teach the invention of claim 1. Glucksman further teaches the electromechanical drive comprises a motor (motor 30). Regarding claim 4. Glucksman and Bousfield teach the invention of claim 1. Glucksman further teaches the tine (hook 65) is configured to move transversely within the pipe (hook 65 is capable to move transversely within the pipe while the body 20 is rotating). Regarding claim 5. Glucksman and Bousfield teach the invention of claim 1. Glucksman further teaches the tine (Hook 65) is configured to unravel a braid when the braid is inserted within the pipe (Hook 65 is capable to unravel a braid when the braid is inserted within the pipe, while rotating the motor of the combination of Glucksman and Bousfield in the opposite direction). Regarding claim 7. Glucksman and Bousfield teach the invention of claim 1. Glucksman further teaches the tine (Hook 65) is configured to penetrate a braid inserted within the pipe (¶0040. Hook 65 is capable to penetrate a braid inserted within the pipe) and is configured to unravel the braid (Hook 65 is capable to unravel the braid while rotating the motor of the combination of Glucksman and Bousfield in the opposite direction). Regarding claim 8. Glucksman and Bousfield teach the invention of claim 7. Glucksman further teaches a suppressor (Fig 5, upper end of portion 64) configured to tamp down the braid (Fig 5, upper end of portion 64 is capable to tamp down the braid). Regarding claim 9. Glucksman and Bousfield teach the invention of claim 1. Glucksman further teaches a threaded member (Fig 5, 58) disposed longitudinally within the housing and configured to be driven by the electromechanical drive (Fig 4 and ¶0042). Regarding claim 11. Glucksman and Bousfield teach the invention of claim 1. Glucksman further teaches a limit switch (switch 16) configured to establish a home state of the electromechanical drive (¶0028 and ¶0035). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6 and 10 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 with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Regarding the Applicant’s remark on page 6-7: The Applicant alleges that the newly amended claims 1 and 6 recite sufficient structure to perform the recited function and that interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) should be withdrawn for claims 1 and 6. In response: The Examiner notes that interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is withdrawn for claim 6. However, the newly amended claim 1 is still does not recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. Therefore, interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is maintained for claim 1. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP§ 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIM ASQIRIBA whose telephone number is (571)270-3416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 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, Eric Rosen can be reached on 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /KARIM ASQIRIBA/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 07, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 21, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599212
METHOD FOR TREATING THE HAIR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588744
HAIRDRESSING AND STYLING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582184
WIG BASE, WIG AND MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR WIG BASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582210
NAIL TIP FOR NAIL ART
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12564256
Long-Handled Motorized Nail Groomer for Ease of Use on Toenails, with Detachable Grooming Head for Use on Fingernails
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
58%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+45.9%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 236 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