Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/966,351

LACE POCKETS

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Dec 03, 2024
Examiner
UPCHURCH, DAVID M
Art Unit
3677
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
746 granted / 1017 resolved
+21.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1048
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
§102
51.3%
+11.3% vs TC avg
§112
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1017 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Claim Objections Applicant is advised that should claims 1-9 be found allowable, claims 21-29 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 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 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. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 21-23, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Partridge (U.S. 948,460). As for Claim 1, Partridge discloses a shoe lace securement system comprising: a pair of shoe lace securing mechanisms (3), each of the pair of shoe lace securing mechanisms coupled to a same shoe (see Fig. 1), wherein each of the pair of shoe lace securing mechanisms comprises: a container (container defined by 4) formed of a housing having a hollow interior (interior defined by 4) storing unused portions of the shoe lace (see Fig. 1); a mechanism securing (6) one end of the shoe lace to the container; and a first connector (14) coupled to a bottom surface of the container attaching the container to the shoe. 2 (Original). The shoe lace securement system of Claim 1, wherein each of the pair of shoe lace securing mechanisms comprises a second connector (aperture in 1) attached to the shoe, the first connector attaching to the second connector securing the container to the shoe (see Figs. 1 and 3). 3 (Original). The shoe lace securement system of Claim 1, wherein each of the pair of shoe lace securing mechanisms comprises a slit (6) formed in the container, wherein the unused portion of the shoe lace is inserted into the slit and into the hollow interior of the container for storage (see Fig. 1). 5 (Original). The shoe lace securement system of Claim 1, wherein the container comprises: a flat bottom surface (bottom surface which defines opening of 13); and an enclosure (4) extending from an outer perimeter of the flat bottom surface forming the hollow interior (see Fig. 5). 6 (Original). The shoe lace securement system of Claim 5, wherein the enclosure is formed of a semi-pliable material (see Fig.1). 7 (Original). The shoe lace securement system of Claim 5, wherein the enclosure is formed of a semi-pliable and translucent material (see Fig. 1). 8 (Original). The shoe lace securement system of Claim 5, wherein the mechanism securing one end of the shoe lace to the container comprises: a first opening (13) formed through the flat bottom surface; and a second opening (opening of 6) formed through the enclosure; wherein one end of the shoe lace is inserted into the first opening into the hollow interior and out of the second opening to secure the shoe lace to the container (see Fig. 1). As for Claim 21, Partridge discloses shoe lace securement system comprising: a pair of shoe lace securing mechanisms (3), each of the pair of shoe lace securing mechanisms coupled to a same shoe (see Fig.1), wherein each of the pair of shoe lace securing mechanisms comprises: a container (container of 3) having an enclosure (4 defining enclosure) forming a hollow interior (4 defining hollow interior) storing unused portions of the shoe lace; a mechanism (6) securing one end of the shoe lace to the container; and a first connector (14) coupled to a bottom surface of the container attaching the container to the shoe. 22 (New). The shoe lace securement system of Claim 21, wherein each of the pair of shoe lace securing mechanisms comprises a second connector (aperture in 1) attached to the shoe, the first connector attaching to the second connector securing the container to the shoe (see Fig. 3). 23 (New). The shoe lace securement system of Claim 21, wherein each of the pair of shoe lace securing mechanisms comprises a slit (6) formed in the container, wherein the unused portion of the shoe lace is inserted into the slit and into the hollow interior of the container for storage (see Fig. 1). 25 (New). The shoe lace securement system of Claim 21, wherein the container comprises a flat bottom surface (surface which defines aperture 13), the enclosure (4) extending from an outer perimeter of the flat bottom surface forming the hollow interior (see Fig. 5). 26 (New). The shoe lace securement system of Claim 25, wherein the enclosure is formed of a semi-pliable material (see Fig. 5). 27 (New). The shoe lace securement system of Claim 25, wherein the enclosure is formed of a semi-pliable and translucent material (see Fig. 5). 28 (New). The shoe lace securement system of Claim 25, wherein the mechanism securing one end of the shoe lace to the container comprises: a first opening (13) formed through the flat bottom surface; and a second opening (opening of 6) formed through the enclosure; wherein one end of the shoe lace is inserted into the first opening into the hollow interior and out of the second opening to secure the shoe lace to the container (see Fig. 1). As for Claim 30, Partridge discloses a shoe lace securement system comprising: a pair of shoe lace securing mechanisms (3), each of the pair of shoe lace securing mechanisms coupled to a same shoe (see Fig. 1), wherein each of the pair of shoe lace securing mechanisms comprises: an enclosure (4) having a hollow interior storing unused portions of the shoe lace (see Fig. 5); a mechanism (6) securing one end of the shoe lace to the container (see Fig. 1); and a first connector (14) coupled to a bottom surface of the container attaching the container to the shoe (see Fig. 3). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 9, 24, and 29 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Tseng U.S. 8,888,346 Lai U.S. 2013/0255038 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M UPCHURCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7957. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-3PM EST M-F. 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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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. /DAVID M UPCHURCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 03, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595815
COUPLING ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594873
Cable Binder for Vehicles, Cable-Binding Assembly, and Vehicle Lamp with the Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582203
Snap-Thru Grid Fastener For Mesh Fabrics
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577973
COLLAPSIBLE SPACER FOR SETTING GAP BETWEEN ADJACENT PANELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12552327
COUPLING ELEMENTS FOR EMBLEM ASSEMBLIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
73%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+18.4%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1017 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