Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/260,952

IMPACT PROTECTION SYSTEMS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 07, 2025
Examiner
PATEL, TAJASH D
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
100% Speedlab LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
1266 granted / 1567 resolved
+10.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1602
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
45.6%
+5.6% vs TC avg
§102
11.7%
-28.3% vs TC avg
§112
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1567 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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. Claims 1 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bainbridge et al. (US 5,920,915). Bainbridge et al. (hereinafter Bainbridge) discloses a protective device/kneepad (10)/helmet (5) including a layer of material (54) having an outer surface and an inner surface configured to be closer to a user when the protective device is worn by the user; a liner/casing (20,30) disposed on the inner surface of the layer (54), the liner being configured to absorb energy from an impact, col. 5, lines 5-32. Further, a bladder/pad (8) coupled to an inner wall of the liner includes a base portion coupled to a domed wall facing the user defines an internal cavity of the bladder, wherein the internal cavity contains a plurality of three-dimensional resilient pellets (22), col. 4, lines 12-31 and as shown in figure 2. The base portion includes a peripheral flange as also shown in figure 2. Furthermore, the resilient pellets of Bainbridge within the internal cavity of the bladder are nonspherical/nonuniform/irregularly shaped and shaped differently from each other, col. 8, lines 17-38 and as shown in figure 23. However, Bainbridge does not show the internal cavity of the bladder being vented to atmosphere. Col. 3, lines 56-57 of Bainbridge discloses the outer casing of the bladder made of a porous, breathable and flexible material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the internal cavity having the pellets of Bainbridge having the bladder being porous is substantially vented to atmosphere to dissipate body heat when the device is worn. With regard to claim 6, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the base portion and the domed wall of Bainbridge are substantially unitary as shown in figure 2. With regard to claims 8-9, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the base portion of Bainbridge is coupled to the inner wall via but not limited to a hook-and-loop fastener, etc. to maintain the bladder in a substantially fixed position to the protective device for optimum impact protection while allowing air from internal cavity to be vented through the porous material or depending on end use thereof. Furthermore, with regard to claims 11 and 12, Bainbridge discloses the outer casing of the bladder made of a porous, breathable and flexible material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the internal cavity having the pellets of Bainbridge having the bladder can be made but not limited to a resilient silicone material, etc. so that that the device is durable and properly conforms about the body when worn. With regard to claim 17, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the resilient pellets of Bainbridge can be made but not limited to silicone, etc. as known in the protective art. Further, with regard to claim 18, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the liner of Bainbridge can be made but not limited to foam, etc. to provide additional impact protection or depending on end use thereof. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-5 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. Claims 2-5 are allowable because the prior art does not teach or suggest the recitation therein including a protective device having an internal cavity of a bladder being vented with pellets therein in combination a sealing cap coupled to an opening of a base portion having an aperture therethrough for venting the internal cavity to atmosphere. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the prior art references cited on PTO 892 each discloses a protective device having Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEJASH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am -5pm. 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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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. February 18, 2026 /TAJASH D PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 07, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593885
SHOCK-ABSORBING ASSEMBLY AND BODY PROTECTION DEVICE INCLUDING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593881
MOLLE RETENTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595606
TUFTING MACHINE AND METHOD OF TUFTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595607
TUFTING MACHINE AND METHOD OF TUFTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594894
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR STITCHING A THREE DIMENSIONAL FORMED COMPONENT AND COMPONENTS FORMED FROM THE METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
81%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+6.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1567 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