Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 21, 2026
Application No. 19/253,243

APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR CARRYING FOOTWEAR

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Jun 27, 2025
Priority
Aug 10, 2011 — divisional of 9167862 +4 more
Examiner
WEAVER, SUE A
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Gavrieli Brands LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 4m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allowance Rate
820 granted / 1323 resolved
-8.0% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
1334
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
48.2%
+8.2% vs TC avg
§102
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
§112
37.4%
-2.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1323 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities It is requested that applicants update the status or the parent applications in the specification.. 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. Claims 1 and dependent claims 2-20 are 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper’ in line 15" and “the interior”in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In broadening the claim applicants appear to have left out part of the shoe structure Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-1 and 15-18 areprovisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/472,415 in view of Davis U.s> 4,944,099. To the estent that claim 1 is complete the paaratus claimed in claim 1 is identical to the apparatus o f claim1 or application ‘415. To have provided the foldabe footwear with and upper and an interior and alternately secured the insole portion with an adhesive without stitching would have been obvious in view of the suggestion by Davis (col 4, line17) before the time the inventions was made and would have been obvious to one having ordInary skill in the art.This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Regardiiinig claima 2-13, please note claims 2-13 repectively of ‘415. In regard to claim s 15-18. Please note claims 14-17 of ‘415 respectively In regard co claim 14, 19 and 20, please note the Figures of the apparatus of ‘415. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUE A WEAVER whose telephone number is (571)272-4548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-10:30 AM EDT. 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, Nathan Jenness, Ph.D.,can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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. /SUE A WEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 27, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12667173
KIND OF CARD STORAGE BOX WITH SLIDE BAR STRUCTURE
2y 10m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12648629
Cut-Proof Anti-Theft Bag Construction
3y 1m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12616883
GOLF BAGS, GOLF BAG TOPS AND METHODS TO MANUFACTURE GOLF BAGS AND GOLF BAG TOPS
2y 7m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12599209
CARD FIXATION ASSEMBLY FOR CARD HOLDER AND CARD HOLDER
2y 8m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12551412
BABY BOTTLE WITH SYRINGE RECEIVER
1y 8m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+28.0%)
2y 8m (~1y 4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1323 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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