Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/922,586

Burping Garment Device

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Oct 22, 2024
Examiner
ANNIS, KHALED
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
491 granted / 870 resolved
-13.6% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+50.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
894
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
§103
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 870 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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 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. DETAILED ACTION This is in response to the amendments filed on 11/12/2025 in which claims 1-2, 4, 7, 12-14, 16, 18 are pending, of which Claims 1, 7, 16, 18 have been amended, claims 3, 5-6, 8-11, 15, 17, 19-20 have been cancelled. Response to Arguments Applicant's Argument: Applicant's arguments with respect to the pending amended claims have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as stated below. The amended claims changed the scope of the claims, for example, previously the claims claimed variety of fasteners (see for example original claim 5), meanwhile the newly amended claims are claiming only hook and loop fastener (see for example claim 1). Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “weighted perimeter” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gay (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0117707 A1). Regarding claim 1, Gay discloses a burping garment device (100) comprising: a body (109, 113) configured (capable) to be worn on a user's upper body (when worn), the body (109, 113) comprising: a front section (the portion above mark 123 as shown in Fig. 4) (capable of) covering both shoulders and an upper chest area of the user (when worn on the shoulders and chest areas); a rear section (the portion below mark 123 as shown in Fig. 4) (capable) for covering a back of the user (When worn on the back of the user); a weighted perimeter edge (the bottom edge where the pocket 129 is present and wherein the extra layer making the pocket create an extra weight); and wherein the front section (See above) and the rear section (See above) are removably attached via a pair of fasteners (123); and further wherein the pair of fasteners are hook and loop fasteners (para. 0012). Regarding claim 2, Gay discloses a burping garment device wherein the front section (See above) is generally U-shaped (See Fig. 4). Regarding claim 4, Gay discloses a burping garment device wherein the rear section (See above) is generally rectangular (See Fig. 4). 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 of this title, 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 7, 12-14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gay (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0117707 A1) in view of Keller (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0365886 A1). Regarding claim 7, Gay discloses a burping garment device (100) comprising: a body (109, 113) configured (capable) to be worn on a user's upper body (when worn), the body (109, 113) comprising: a front section (the portion above mark 123 as shown in Fig. 4) (capable) for covering both shoulders and an upper chest area of the user (when worn on the shoulders and upper chest areas); a rear section (the portion below mark 123 as shown in Fig. 4) (capable) for covering a back of the user (When worn on the back of the user); a top layer (206); a bottom layer (203); and wherein the front section and the rear section are removably attached via a pair of fasteners (123); wherein the top layer is an absorbent layer (206 para. 0011 discloses terry cloth); and further wherein the bottom layer (203) is a waterproof thermoplastic polyurethane layer (para. 0011 discloses polyurethane laminate (PUL) which is an approved material as evident by the applicant’s own specification see para. 0031). Gay does not disclose that the top layer is an absorbent microfiber layer and the bottom layer is waterproof thermoplastic polyurethane layer. However, Keller teaches yet another burp cloth (See Figs. 1-2) having a top layer is an absorbent microfiber layer and the bottom layer is waterproof thermoplastic polyurethane layer (para. 0013). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an absorbent microfiber layer a waterproof thermoplastic polyurethane layer as taught by Keller as the material for the top and bottom layers. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because absorbent microfiber and thermoplastic polyurethane was a well-known material for wearable protective gear as taught by Keller. Regarding claim 12, Gay discloses a burping garment device wherein the top layer is comprised of a waterproof material (when worn inside out). Regarding claim 13, Gay as modified by Keller discloses a burping garment device wherein the top layer is comprised of a thermoplastic polyurethane or a polyurethane laminate (See above). Regarding claim 14, Gay discloses a burping garment device wherein the front section (See above) is generally U-shaped (See Fig. 4). Regarding claim 16, Gay discloses a burping garment device wherein the rear section (See above) is generally rectangular (See Fig. 4). Regarding claim 18, Gay in view of Keller has been previously discussed, but their teachings will again be summarized below. They teach a burb bib having a front and rear section removably connected via a pair of fasteners and having waterproof and absorbent layers. Under the principles of combination, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would obviously perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir.1986). MPEP 2112.02. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED ANNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-5 PM EST. 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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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. /KHALED ANNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 22, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 12, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593886
Energy Absorbing Protective Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575633
ROTATING BODY FIXING MEANS FOR HELMET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569052
ARTICLE HOLDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569023
ADJUSTABLE HELMET LINER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566049
BODY ARMOR SYSTEM
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
56%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+50.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 870 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