Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/870,400

QUICK CLOTHES HANGER SUITABLE FOR NARROW COLLARS

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Nov 28, 2024
Examiner
BETIT, JACOB F
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
35%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 11m
To Grant
51%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 35% of cases
35%
Career Allow Rate
53 granted / 151 resolved
-34.9% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 11m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
178
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 151 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “2” has been used to designate both a hook and a movable arm. 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. 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 Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The disclosure is further objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 44, the phrase “movable arm 1” is incorrect. 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 1-7 and 10 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. Specifically, the phrase “quick-to-use” is unclear. How is “quick” measured or determined? What is this being compared to? The term “quick” is subjective, and its limitations unknown. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baltz (20220279950). In regards to Claim 1, Baltz teaches a clothes hanger suitable for small collars (Figures 96, 97), comprising a hand-held end (Detail 720), a movable arm (Detail 741), a releasing assembly (Details 770, 777) and a returning component (Detail 790), wherein: the hand-held end is provided with a fixed arm (Detail 721) and the fixed arm is configured to work with the movable arm to support clothes (called garment support surface), the movable arm is mounted on the hand-held end (Figure 96); the releasing assembly is mounted on the hand-held end and in linkage with the movable arm to drive the movable arm close to the hand-held end to pass through a small collar; or to drive the movable arm away from the hand-held end to open and to lock the movable arm to support clothes (Figure 103); the returning component is mounted on the hand-held end and connected with the movable arm and/or the releasing assembly (Figure 103). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-7 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See of Record. Specifically, at least Baltz (WO 2020069315) Figure 3, Geltzer et al (EP 2829203) Figures 1 and 2, Moser (DE 202014101237) Figures 1a-1c, Carnes (WO 2008051562) Figure 3, Weiser (2926823) Figure 1, and Lowe (2440637) Figure 6 teach elements similar to those as currently claimed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm. 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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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. /SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 28, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Sep 10, 2025
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 9339688
CORE EXERCISE APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted May 17, 2016
Patent 9043275
DATA SYNCHRONIZATION USING STRING MATCHING
2y 5m to grant Granted May 26, 2015
Patent 9026539
RANKING SUPERVISED HASHING
2y 5m to grant Granted May 05, 2015
Patent 9020954
RANKING SUPERVISED HASHING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2015
Patent 8819054
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 26, 2014
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
35%
Grant Probability
51%
With Interview (+16.3%)
4y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 151 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