Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 26, 2026
Application No. 19/686,192

SEWING MACHINE AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
May 22, 2026
Priority
Nov 11, 2021 — provisional 63/278,286 +2 more
Examiner
WORRELL JR, LARRY D
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Singer Sourcing Limited LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 9m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
1210 granted / 1462 resolved
+12.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
1487
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
§103
35.4%
-4.6% vs TC avg
§102
29.8%
-10.2% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1462 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
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 . 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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,649,985. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claim 1 of the instant application is broader at least for the reason that it does not recite the sensors as being “optical sensors”. As such the claims of the patent encompass those of the application and the claims of the application are not patentably distinct from those of the patent. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is reminded that all business with the Patent and Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt. 37 C.F.R. 1.2 Further it is noted that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.111, including: -The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. -A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. -Moreover, The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06, MPEP 714.02. The "disclosure" includes the claims, the specification and the drawings. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY WORRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4997. The examiner can normally be reached on M, W-F. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /DANNY WORRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732 ldw
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 22, 2026
Application Filed
Oct 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12768088
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR PIECING A MATERIAL TO FORM A QUILT
2y 11m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12753537
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WIG MANUFACTURE
2y 1m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12753535
KNITTED COMPONENT HAVING AT LEAST ONE THERMOPLASTIC POLYMER ELEMENT
1y 4m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12735835
TEXTILE ARTICLE AND METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION AND DISASSEMBLY OF A TEXTILE ARTICLE
1y 6m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12729465
ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR INCORPORATING A KNITTED COMPONENT
2y 8m to grant Granted Sep 08, 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
83%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+9.8%)
2y 3m (~1y 9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1462 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