Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/905,429

Equipment Hanging Device

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 03, 2024
Examiner
EPPS, TODD MICHAEL
Art Unit
3632
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sportwaves Unlimited Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
704 granted / 967 resolved
+20.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1005
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
§102
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§112
31.4%
-8.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 967 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 . This is a non-final Office Action for serial number 18/905,429, Equipment Hanging Device, filed on October 3, 2024. 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 5, and 12 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 5, the language recitation “forming” is considered a method claim in an apparatus format. See MPEP 2173.05(p). Regarding claim 12, it appears that applicant is trying to positively recited the hooks. In this case, the word ‘hooks’ is not positively recited and is considered as a functional language. 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. Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,632,285 to Dillingham. Regarding claim 1, and 11, Dillingham ‘285 discloses an equipment hanger (10) comprising a body (12) having a front side and a back side, and a top and a bottom (Fig. 1); two hanging arms (30) attached to and hanging from the bottom of the body; an equipment loop (46) attached to and hanging from the bottom of the body and a loop arm (52) attached to and hanging from the equipment loop; wherein the body, the hanging arms, the equipment loop and the loop arm are all formed integrally as a single piece as shown in Figure 1; wherein the hanging arms and the loop arm form hook openings (36, and 60). Regarding claim 5, Dillingham ‘285 discloses multiple pinholes (holes at the bottom where 33, 34 – pins enter) on the body. Regarding claim 8, Dillingham ‘285 discloses hooks (58) and wherein the hanging arms and the loop arm further form hook openings (36, 60) for attaching the hooks. Regarding claim 9, Dillingham ‘285 discloses wherein the hooks form wider hook heads extending from narrower hook bodies and wherein the hook bodies are configured to thread through the hook openings and the hook heads hold the hooks in place within the hook openings in use. Regarding claim 12, see 112 rejections. 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(s) 2-3, 6-7, 13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dillingham ‘285 in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,066,421 to Strassburger et al. (Strassburger). Regarding claims 2-3, 13, 17, and 19, Dillingham ‘285 fails to disclose wherein a back inset on the back side and a front inset on the front side of the body for inserting a back plate / a front plate. Nevertheless, Strassburger ‘421 discloses wherein the body (12) comprising back and front insets (30, 32). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Dillingham ‘285 with insets as one would have a motivation to provide convenient surfaces for pictures, logos or test to be embossed in as taught by Strassburger ‘421. Regarding claims 6-7, Dillingham ‘285 fails to disclose wherein the single piece is injection molded and formed of TPU. Nevertheless, Strassburger ‘421 discloses wherein the whole parts are made of plastic (col. 3, lines 30-35). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the single piece of Dillingham ‘285 with TPU injection molded to provide strength and rigidity to support the weight as deemed suitable for given application factors as taught by Strassburger ‘421. Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dillingham ‘285 in view of Strassburger ‘421, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0311785 to O’Malley. Dillingham ‘285 in view of Strassburger ‘421 fails to disclose a transparent window. Nevertheless, O’Malley ‘785 discloses a transparent window display for hangers [0098]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the back inset of Dillingham in view of Strassburger to include the transparent window because one would have a motivation to improve the appearance, and to help weatherize the transparent window if used outdoor as taught by O’Malley ‘785. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4, 10, 15, 16, 18, 20 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. Regarding claims 4, 16, and 20, the prior art fails to disclose a retaining band 802 configured to hold the back plate in place in the back inset. Regarding claim 15, the prior art fails to disclose wherein the back inset forms slots. Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to disclose a collar disposed around the equipment loop and configured to tighten the loop when the collar slides down the equipment loop. Regarding claim 18, the prior art fails to disclose wherein the body further forms tabs. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 1,815,673 - drying rack Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD M. EPPS whose telephone number is (571) 272-8282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am - 5pm. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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. /TODD M EPPS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 December 30, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 03, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 03, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 03, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583545
A Rear Mirror Assembly With Anti-Rotation Protection
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584587
BRACKET, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HANGING ARTICLES UNDER A STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573828
WIRE STUB OUT CLIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564376
POSITIONING ARM APPARATUS FOR ULTRASOUND HEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560277
DISPLAY MOUNTING SUPPORT
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+7.4%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 967 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