Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/176,800

GROOMING ASSISTANCE DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 11, 2025
Examiner
EVANS, EBONY E
Art Unit
3647
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
612 granted / 957 resolved
+11.9% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
976
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.1%
+2.1% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 957 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 . 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1, 2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (a)(2) as being anticipated by Johnson (US D801642) in view of Dornak (US 6643847). Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a grooming assistance device for grooming an animal by a groomer comprising: a headgear to be worn on a head of a groomer (see figure 1 below), a food holder attached to the heargear, the food holder having a front side configured to hold a food and positioned on the headgear so that it is accessible to the animal allowing the animal to eat the food on the front side of the food holder while the groomer is grooming the animal but fails to teach wherein the food holder has a detachable attachment mechanism on a back side of the food holder and on a front surface of the headgear, so the food holder can be detached from the headgear to allow for cleaning of the food holder and placement of the food on the front side of the food holder. However, Dornak teaches a detachable attachment mechanism (on a back side of the food holder (hook and fastener element 126, col. 3, ll. 7-8) and on a front surface of the headgear (supporting facie 104, 106, 110 and 112, col. 3, ll. 2-4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Johnson’s hat with a fastener as taught by Dornak to allow the design to be easily removed for cleaning and/or repair or removed to easily personalize the hat. PNG media_image1.png 601 652 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Johnson as modified by Dornak teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Dornak further teaches wherein the detachable attachment mechanism is a hook and loop fastener (col. 3, ll. 2-4). Regarding claim 4, Johnson as modified by Dornak teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Johnson further teaches wherein the front side of the food holder is a licking pad which configured to allow the animal to eat the food by licking (an animal is capable of licking any food off of pad). Regarding claim 5, Johnson as modified by Dornak teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Johnson further teaches wherein the front side of the food holder has a plurality of protrusions for receiving and holding the food on the food holder (see figure 1 above). Regarding claim 6, Johnson as modified by Dornak teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Johnson further teaches wherein the front side of the food holder has a plurality of pockets and crevices for receiving and holding the food on the food holder (space between adjacent protrusions, fig. 1). Regarding claim 7, Johnson as modified by Dornak teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Johnson further teaches wherein the headgear is a hat (fig. 1). Regarding claim 8, Johnson as modified by Dornak teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Johnson further teaches wherein the hat has a band to secure the hat on the head of the groomer (fig. 3). Regarding claim 9, Johnson as modified by Dornak teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Johnson further teaches wherein the hat has a strap to secure the hat on the head of the groomer (fig. 3). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Dornak, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tapia (US 5070545). Regarding claim 3, Johnson as modified by Dornak teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein the detachable attachment mechanism is a snap fastener. However, Tapia teaches a snap fastener (engagement members 52, col. 5, ll. 35-42). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Johnson’s hat with a fastener as taught by Tapia to allow the design to be easily removed for cleaning and/or repair or removed to easily personalize the hat. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EBONY E EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-1157. The examiner can normally be reached 9am -5pm 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 5712726909. 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. /EBONY E EVANS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 11, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599067
CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT PRODUCTION FACILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593818
Unloading Auger
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588656
ANIMAL FEEDER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588655
CAT TOWER FEEDING TRAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582093
PORTABLE UNIT FOR DOSING OF A DISINFECTANT HOOF BATH REMEDY FOR LIVESTOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
64%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+29.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 957 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