Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/957,965

SPORTS TRAINING AND REHABILITATION DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 25, 2024
Examiner
KENNEDY, JOSHUA T
Art Unit
3784
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
A1 & D1 Enterprise Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
51%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 51% of resolved cases
51%
Career Allow Rate
689 granted / 1348 resolved
-18.9% vs TC avg
Strong +48% interview lift
Without
With
+48.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
1390
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
39.5%
-0.5% vs TC avg
§102
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
§112
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1348 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claims 1-20 have been examined. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the handle portion in cross section as described in the specification (Par. 0031; Fig 5). MPEP 608.02 (IX). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. Claims 1-5 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solloway (US Patent 4416451). 1. Solloway discloses a device (Figs 12-13) comprising: a head portion (148/162) at a first end of the device; a handle portion (146/170) at a second end of the device; and a resistance element (154/164) within and extending across the head portion. 2. Solloway discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the head portion is at least substantially planar (Fig 13). 3. Solloway discloses the device of Claim 2, wherein the resistance element is at least substantially planar and is coplanar with the head portion (Fig 13). 4. Solloway discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the resistance element defines a plurality of apertures (Figs 12-13). 5. Solloway discloses the device of Claim 4, wherein the plurality of apertures are configured to allow a flow of fluid to pass therethrough when the device is in use (Abstract). 8. Solloway discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the resistance element is at least partially defined by a plurality of elongate elements (150,151/ 164). 9. Solloway discloses the device of Claim 8, wherein the resistance element includes a central portion, the plurality of elongate elements including a linear first elongate element (150) and a linear second elongate element (151), the linear first elongate element and the linear second elongate element intersecting at the central portion (Fig 12). 10. Solloway discloses the device of Claim 9, wherein the plurality of elongate elements further includes a plurality of curved elongate elements (Fig 12). 11. Solloway discloses the device of Claim 10, wherein each of the linear first elongate element and the linear second elongate element terminates at a corresponding one of the plurality of curved elongate elements (Fig 12). 12. Solloway discloses the device of Claim 1, further comprising a throat region, the throat region being positioned between the head portion and the handle portion (Fig 12). 13. Solloway discloses the device of Claim 12, wherein the throat region defines a throat aperture (Col 8, Lines 6-8: “Racquet-like aquatic exercise assembly 142 (FIG. 12) can be in the form of a tennis racquet”). 14. Solloway discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the head portion and the resistance element are formed as a single, unitary piece (Fig 12). Examiner notes that the specific method of forming is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation “formed as a single, unitary piece” has been given only limited patentable weight and does not serve to structurally distinguish the claims. See MPEP § 2113. 15. Solloway discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the head portion defines a head aperture, the resistance element being attached within the head aperture (Fig 12). 16. Solloway discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the resistance element does not include a plurality of interwoven strings (Fig 12). 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. Claims 6-7 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solloway. As to Claims 6, 7, and 17, Solloway discloses the device significantly as claimed, but does not disclose wherein the device weighs between approximately 6 ounces and approximately 36 ounces or wherein the device weighs at least 30 ounces. However, although silent on the dimension, Solloway does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the weight of the device, but the device inherently has a weight providing desired level of control and/or resistance for a user. A change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Through routine experimentation and optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Solloway to have said device weigh between approximately 6 ounces and approximately 36 ounces or at least 30 ounces as the reference does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the weight of the device as this is merely a change in size producing expected and predictable results. 18. Solloway discloses the device of Claim 17, wherein the head portion is at least substantially planar and the resistance element is at least substantially planar, the resistance element being coplanar with the head portion (Fig 13). 19. Solloway discloses the device of Claim 17, wherein the resistance element defines a plurality of apertures (Figs 12-13). 20. Solloway discloses a method of physical rehabilitation and sports training, the method comprising: moving a sports training device at least partially beneath a surface of water (Abstract), the sports training device including: a head portion (148/162) at a first end of the device, the head portion defining a head aperture (Figs 12-13); a handle portion (146/170) at a second end of the device; and a resistance element (154/164) within and extending across the head aperture, However, Solloway does not disclose wherein the device weighs between approximately 6 ounces and approximately 36 ounces. However, although silent on the dimension, Solloway does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the weight of the device, but the device inherently has a weight providing desired level of control and/or resistance for a user. A change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Through routine experimentation and optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Solloway to have said device weigh between approximately 6 ounces and approximately 36 ounces as the reference does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the weight of the device as this is merely a change in size producing expected and predictable results. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Winger, Stout et al, Pallesen et al, and Tampoya all disclose similar exercise training devices having apertures therein to provide resistance when applied against a fluid. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)272-8297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7a-4:30p MST. 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 Jimenez can be reached at (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. 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. /JOSHUA T KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784 2/10/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 25, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594453
WEIGHT-ADJUSTABLE DUMBBELL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589271
DEVICE FOR PERFORMING PHYSICAL EXERCISES, IN PARTICULAR FOR MOTOR REHABILITATION EXERCISES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582866
EXERCISE BENCH WITH SIDE PADS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576300
Assisted Planche Exercise Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576327
EXERCISE BENCH WITH INTEGRATED WEIGHT STORAGE UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
51%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+48.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1348 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