Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/807,690

STRUCTURE FOR HORIZONTAL POLE AND WEIGHT FOR TENNIS PRACTICE DEVICE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 16, 2024
Priority
Aug 16, 2023 — RE 10-2023-0107639
Examiner
WALTER, AUDREY BRADLEY
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Il-Seuk Kang
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allowance Rate
955 granted / 1177 resolved
+21.1% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1201
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§103
56.5%
+16.5% vs TC avg
§102
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
§112
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1177 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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 16 August 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR 10-2023-0107639 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings are objected to because they have a line and shading quality that is too dark distinguish between different features and too dark to be reproduced. Refer to 37 CFR 1.84(I). See Figure 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter. Claim Objections Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, line 1, “The structure” should be changed to A structure. Regarding claim 1, line 11, “horizontal pole” should be changed to the horizontal pole. Regarding claim 3, line 3, “the weight made of partly” should be changed to a weight made partly. Regarding claim 3, line 5, “the weight” should be changed to a weight. Regarding claim 3, line 6, “the soft material” should be changed to a soft material. Regarding claim 3, lines 6-7, “the hard material” should be changed to a hard material. Regarding claim 4, line 3, “the weight made of partly” should be changed to a weight made partly. Regarding claim 4, line 5, “the weight” should be changed to a weight. Regarding claim 4, line 6, “the soft material” should be changed to a soft material. Regarding claim 4, lines 6-7, “the hard material” should be changed to a hard material. Appropriate correction is required. 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 2 and 4 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. Regarding claim 2, lines 2-4, “where the end of the front-end connection cord (140) penetrates and passes through the pulling string O-ring (132) and is then coupled with or bound to the front-end connection cord O-ring (141)” is indefinite. This phrase in incomplete. It is suggested to delete “where” from this phrase to remedy this rejection. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the weight" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to change “the weight” to a weight to remedy this rejection. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 3 are allowed. Claims 2 and 4 would be allowable, if rewritten as suggested by the examiner above, to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, the combination including a pulling string O-ring, a front-end connection string O-ring, and at least one row of magnets in the invention as claimed is neither disclosed nor rendered obvious by the prior art. The closest prior art is Kang et al. (WO 2022/039443 A1 using US 2023/0149790 A1 as English translation equivalent). Kang discloses the structure for a tennis practice device (Figure 1) comprising: the tennis practice device (Figure 1), which comprises: a horizontal pole [130], which is mounted in a horizontal direction at a certain point of a vertical portion [120] of a building or building structure; an O-ring [131], which is installed at an end of the horizontal pole [130]; a front-end connection string [200], which starts from a roller [140] installed on the vertical portion [120] of the building or building structure or the horizontal pole and passes through the O-ring [131] of the horizontal pole [130]; a pulling string (paragraph 0037: “a ball connection cord”), which is coupled with or bound to the O-ring [131] and is capable of lowering the end of the front-end connection string [200] near to the ground [500] by pulling the O-ring [131] in a vicinity of the ground [500] toward the ground [500]; a ball string [210] connected to the O-ring [131]; and a ball [220] hanging at a lower end of the ball string [210] (paragraphs 0037, 0055, and Figure 1). However, Kang neither discloses nor renders obvious a pulling string O-ring, a front-end connection string O-ring, or at least one row of magnets densely and insertedly arranged on a lower surface of the horizontal pole. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Gong (US 2018/0021649 A1), Buono et al. (US 8,585,516 B1), Adams (CH 706,522 A2), and Kita (US 6,334,821 B1) which all disclose similar sports practice devices comprising a tethered ball. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY B. WALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571)272-4463. 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. /AUDREY B. WALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 16, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12654071
IMPROVEMENTS IN OR RELATING TO TENNIS BALLS
3y 5m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12644677
Folding Target Stand
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12612915
INTAKES AND GAS SEPARATORS FOR DOWNHOLE PUMPS, AND RELATED APPARATUSES AND METHODS
1y 11m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12584477
Packing Leakage Detection System and Method
1y 11m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569810
A SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION CATALYST AND A PROCESS FOR PREPARING A SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION CATALYST
3y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.6%)
2y 4m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1177 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