Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 05, 2026
Application No. 19/306,855

Golf Bag

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Aug 21, 2025
Priority
Feb 01, 2022 — CIP of D1057411 +2 more
Examiner
COLLINS, RAVEN
Art Unit
3735
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ogio International Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
Est. Remaining
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allowance Rate
601 granted / 963 resolved
-7.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1005
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
85.7%
+45.7% vs TC avg
§102
5.7%
-34.3% vs TC avg
§112
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 963 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . This action is written in response to application number 19/306,855 filed 08/21/2025 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 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,330,029. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the allowable limitations of the instant application are also found in the previously issued patent. See chart analysis below. Issued patent 12,330,029 Application 19/306,855 1. A golf bag comprising: a base assembly; a shaft immobilization component comprising a first outer side wall, a second outer side wall, a front wall, a rear wall, a plurality of extension members, each of the extension members extending from the first outer side wall to the second outer side wall, each of the plurality of extension members having a plurality of teeth, each of the plurality of extension members also having an upper panel with a hook and loop fabric attached thereto, wherein the shaft immobilization component is positioned within the base; a top assembly comprising a plurality of individual golf club separation members; an internal assembly comprising a plurality of individual chambers extending from the top assembly to the each upper panel of the shaft immobilization component; an outer assembly attached to the top assembly and the base assembly, wherein the internal assembly is positioned within the outer assembly; wherein the combination of the shaft immobilization component, the top assembly and the internal assembly restrict the movement of golf clubs and prevents the interaction of golf clubs within the golf bag. 2.The golf bag according to claim 1 wherein the plurality of individual golf club separation members ranges from 12-16. 3. The golf bag according to claim 1 wherein the golf bag has a height ranging from 30 to 40 inches. 4. The golf bag according to claim 1 wherein the golf bag has a mass ranging from 4 to 10 pounds. 1. A golf bag comprising: a base assembly; a shaft immobilization component comprising a plurality of extension members, each of the plurality of extension members having a plurality of teeth, wherein the shaft immobilization component is positioned within the base; a top assembly comprising a plurality of individual golf club separation members, wherein the plurality of individual golf club separation members ranges from 12-16; an internal assembly comprising a plurality of individual chambers extending from the top assembly to the shaft immobilization component; an outer assembly attached to the top assembly and the base assembly, wherein the internal assembly is positioned within the outer assembly; wherein the combination of the shaft immobilization component, the top assembly and the internal assembly restrict the movement of golf clubs and prevents the interaction of golf clubs within the golf bag; wherein the golf bag has a height ranging from 30 to 40 inches; wherein the golf bag has a mass ranging from 4 to 10 pounds. 5. The golf bag according to claim 1 wherein the outer assembly comprises a plurality of pockets. 2. The golf bag according to claim 1 wherein the outer assembly comprises a plurality of pockets. 6. The golf bag according to claim 1 wherein each of the plurality of individual golf club separation members comprises a plurality of slots defined by a plurality of movable walls. 3. The golf bag according to claim 1 wherein each of the plurality of individual golf club separation members comprises a plurality of slots defined by a plurality of movable walls. 7. The golf bag according to claim 1 wherein the top assembly further comprises a plurality of handles. 4. The golf bag according to claim 1 wherein the top assembly further comprises a plurality of handles. Appropriate action is required. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm 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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached at 571-272-4561. 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. /RAVEN COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3735 /Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 21, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12660953
SQUEEZE PREVENTION BRACKET
1y 7m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12656835
CASE AND MOUNT SYSTEM FOR HANDHELD ELECTRONIC DEVICE
1y 5m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12649615
Carrier For Containers
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12611015
COLLAPSIBLE HARD CASE FOR SURFBOARDS AND OTHER LARGE OBJECTS
3y 1m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12613557
CASE AND MOUNT SYSTEM FOR HANDHELD ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 8m to grant Granted Apr 28, 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
73%
With Interview (+10.7%)
2y 11m (~2y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 963 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