Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/339,712

DEVICE FOR PROVIDING TACTILE STIMULATION

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Sep 25, 2025
Examiner
HALE, GLORIA M
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
BHAPTICS INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
1261 granted / 1728 resolved
+3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
1745
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
§102
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
§112
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1728 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 . Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The “Related Application Information” needs to be updated to include the U.S. Patent Numbers of any “Related Applications” . Appropriate correction is required. The use of the term VELCRO, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology of a hook and loop fastener on page 7, last line and page 8, line 2; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 5, it appears that “extending” should read - - extension - - . Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12 437 618 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims claim the same tactile stimulation provision device as a glove comprising a first fabric forming a glove, a second fabric in the form of a shape covering a hand back portion and finger upper portions of the first fabric and the shape covering from the finger upper portions to fingerprint portions of the first fabric by extending fixing patches covering finger print portions of the first fabric and first actuators fixed between the fixing patches and the first fabric as claimed in claims 1-11. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Claims 1-12 would be allowed with the submission of a proper Terminal Disclaimer as discussed above. Reasons for Allowance Claims 1-12 are allowable because the prior art does not disclose or render obvious a tactile stimulation device which is a glove comprising a first fabric in a form of a glove and a second fabric having a shape covering hand back portion and finger upper portions of the first fabric with the second fabric shape covering included from the finger upper portions of the second fabric and having first openings, and actuators inserted into the first openings and fixed between the fixing patches and the second fabric as claimed in claim 1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLORIA M HALE whose telephone number is (571)272-4984. The examiner can normally be reached MON.-THURS.. 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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 1-571-272-3425. 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. /GLORIA M HALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 25, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599183
FORMED BRASSIERE AND ASSOCIATED METHOD OF MANUFACTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599182
SHAPING GARMENT WITH ADJUSTABLE LOW BACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12575616
BRASSIERE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575617
BACK TO FRONT REVERSIBLE GARMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575632
HEAD PROTECTION GEAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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 (+19.2%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1728 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