Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/910,174

WEIGHTED VEST

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Oct 09, 2024
Examiner
URBIEL GOLDNER, GARY D
Art Unit
3784
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
493 granted / 675 resolved
+3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +61% interview lift
Without
With
+61.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
685
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§103
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§102
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
§112
32.4%
-7.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 675 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION This is the first Office action on the merits based on the 18/910,174 application filed on 10/09/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The effective filing date of the present application is 10/09/2023. Claims 1 and 2, as originally filed, are currently pending and considered below. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 3-4, “at least one wheel disposed on at least a portion of a rear surface of the main body to rotate in response to a user wearing the weighted vest performing squats” should be --- at least one wheel disposed on at least a portion of a rear surface of the main body and configured to rotate in response to a user wearing the weighted vest while performing squats ---. 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). Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, lines 4-5, “at least one wheel disposed on at least a portion of a rear surface of the main body to rotate in response to a user wearing the weighted vest performing squats” should be --- at least one wheel disposed on at least a portion of a rear surface of the main body and configured to rotate in response to a user wearing the weighted vest while performing squats ---. 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. 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. Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, the limitation “at least one peg disposed on at least a portion of the main body to receive the at least one external weight thereupon” is recited in lines 3-4. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether or not “at least a portion of the main body” is the same as, different from, in addition to, and/or part of “at least a portion of the main body” recited in claim 1, line 3. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to --- at least one peg disposed on at least a second portion of the main body to receive the at least one external weight thereupon ---. Refer to the specification, as originally filed, paragraphs 00054-00057, and Figures 2 and 3. 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marji (US 2012/0289385) in view of Watson (US 4,382,302). Regarding claim 1, Marji discloses a weighted vest (Abstract), comprising: a main body having a shape of at least one of a vest (the exercise vest 14; Figures 1 and 2), a shirt, and a blouse; and at least one wheel (the plurality of rollers 16; Figures 1-5) disposed on at least a portion of a rear surface of the main body (Figures 1-3) to rotate in response to a user wearing the weighted vest performing squats with a back of the user against a wall (Figures 2 and 3). However, Marji is silent as to: at least one weight disposed on at least a portion of the main body. Watson teaches an analogous weighted vest (the weighted training vest 10; Figures 1-3) comprising at least one weight (the plurality of weights 22; Figures 1-4) disposed on at least a portion of a main body of the weighted vest (the front panel 12 together with the rear panel 14 of the weighted training vest 10; Figures 1-3). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the main body of Marji’s invention to include at least one weight disposed on at least a portion of the main body, as taught by Watson, in order to enable the user to incrementally vary the weight of the weighted vest (Watson: column 2, lines 47-63; column 4, lines 3-30; Figures 1-4). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marji (US 2012/0289385) in view of Watson (US 4,382,302), and further in view of Kelly (US 2020/0094098). Regarding claim 2, Marji in view of Watson teaches the invention as substantially claimed, see above, but fails to teach: at least one external weight; and at least one peg disposed on at least a portion of the main body to receive the at least one external weight thereupon. Kelly teaches an analogous weighted vest (the weighted vest 10; Figures 1, 2, and 4) comprising at least one external weight (the Olympic weight plates 80; Figure 6); and at least one peg (the bar element 50; Figures 6 and 7) disposed on at least a portion of a main body of the weighted vest (the vest panel 11 of the weighted vest 10; Figures 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7) to receive the at least one external weight thereupon (Figure 6). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Marji’s invention modified in view of Watson to include at least one external weight and at least one peg disposed on at least a portion of the main body to receive the at least one external weight thereupon, as taught by Kelly, in order to enable the user to “easily change the weight size with a wide range of standard weight choices and all with standard shapes” for the advantage of overcoming “the shortcomings of the prior art weighted vests, in terms of the availability and the amount of weights that can be used in the vest” (Kelly: paragraph 0003). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY D URBIEL GOLDNER whose telephone number is (313)446-6554. The examiner can normally be reached between 9AM and 5PM, Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. 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, LoAn B Jimenez can be reached on (571)272-4966. 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. Visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov to file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. For information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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. /GARY D URBIEL GOLDNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 09, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599808
MAT-TYPE EXERCISE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594478
Plyometric Exercise Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594459
Apparatus for inclined push-ups
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12569719
Multifunctional Balanced Lacing Board and Comprehensive Training Method for Balanced Lacing
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569718
SWITCH ASSEMBLY FOR REGULATING ROTARY LOAD AND FITNESS BIKE COMPRISING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
99%
With Interview (+61.0%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 675 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