Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 35/521,445

Bag

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jun 07, 2024
Examiner
GRIFFITH, DUSTIN ANDREW
Art Unit
2913
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Mcm Global AG
OA Round
2 (Final)
99%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 99% — above average
99%
Career Allow Rate
162 granted / 164 resolved
+38.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+1.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 8m
Avg Prosecution
2 currently pending
Career history
166
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
§102
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
§112
57.7%
+17.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 164 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Reconsideration The merits of this case have been carefully examined again in light of applicant's response received 7/28/2025. The rejection of record under 35 USC 112(b) and under 35 USC 112 (a) & (b) has not been overcome and is set forth again and made final. DrawingsThe different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s) (see 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1)). In this case, the replacement drawings are not in the correct order. The applicant may overcome this objection by ordering the drawings starting with Fig. 1.1 and ending in Fig. 1.7. Claim rejectionThe claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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. The claim is rejected for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required in 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) & (b). The claim is indefinite because the drawings include, in the figure(s), broken lines that are not described in the specification, and the scope of the claimed design cannot be determined. If the broken lines represent portions of the article or environmental structure for which protection is not sought, applicant may overcome this rejection by inserting a statement similar to the following into the specification immediately preceding the claim, provided such statement does not introduce new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 132): --The broken line showing of [whatever the described element is] is for the purpose of depicting [portions of the article or environmental structure or whatever else it may be] and [does or does not] form part of the claimed design.-- Claim rejectionsThe claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails 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.The claim is indefinite and non-enabling because there are inconsistencies between the views of the drawings that are so great that the overall appearance of the design is unclear (MPEP § 1504.04), specifically: The zipper pull shown in the Fig. 1.5 top view does not align to what is shown in the Fig. 1.1 front view. See the annotation as an example below. PNG media_image1.png 1215 826 media_image1.png Greyscale Because of the inconsistencies, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled. To overcome this rejection, it is suggested that applicant submit new drawings of the claimed design that show the design clearly and consistently. If certain non-enabled portions of the design cannot be fully enabled without the introduction of new matter, applicant may remove from the claim the areas or portions of the design that are considered indefinite and nonenabling by converting them to broken line and amending the specification to indicate those portions form no part of the claimed design. If replacement drawings are submitted Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. Caution against new matter When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). Final Action THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Conclusion Accordingly the claim is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) and under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) and the drawings are objected to. Contact information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN GRIFFITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10:00am – 7:00pm & Friday 1:00PM – 6:00PM 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, Ian Simmons can be reached on (571)-272-2658. 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. /D.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2913 /IAN SIMMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2913
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 07, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jul 28, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 07, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 09, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 10, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1120611
Rucksack
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent D1104456
Backpack
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104466
SHOTGUN SHELL POUCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104451
Storage Box
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104452
KEYRING
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
99%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+1.5%)
1y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 164 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month