Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 35/521,867

Belt trimming

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Apr 03, 2024
Examiner
LEECH, NICOLE MARIE
Art Unit
2914
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Schumacher GmbH
OA Round
3 (Final)
98%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 98% — above average
98%
Career Allowance Rate
143 granted / 146 resolved
+37.9% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
7 currently pending
Career history
148
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§102
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
§112
82.7%
+42.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 146 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of 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 . Remarks The amendments to the drawings included in applicant’s response, filed on July 21, 2026, have been acknowledged. After consideration of these amendments, the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and (b) has been withdrawn. However, because the replacement drawings do not meet the description requirement, the claim is being rejected again under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for new matter. Final Rejection under 35 U.S.C §112(a) The claim is FINALLY rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as failing to comply with the description requirement. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). Specifically, the changes to the amended drawings filed on July 21, 2026 create different characteristics from the original drawings filed on August 2, 2024: The visual disclosure is inadequate such that the appearance and shape or configuration of the design for which protection is sought cannot be determined or understood (MPEP § 1504.04). Specifically, the inconsistent appearance of the grey shading in the amended drawings suggest more meaning than can be inferred by the disclosure as presented. Additionally, there is no support for the inclusion of surface shading as shown from the original drawing disclosure. The arching of the topmost layer rounded square chiclets in the amended drawings appear smaller and more irregular in shape. The second solid arching layer in the amended drawings appears thinner, and shows more of an open gap between the first and third arching layers. The third beaded arching layer in the amended drawings appear to have more beads and are smaller in size. The fourth and fifth rope-twist arching layers in the amended drawings are shown as twisted in the opposite direction. To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim or may amend the drawings to show the same design that was in the original drawings, and that doesn’t include new matter. PNG media_image1.png 1700 1658 media_image1.png Greyscale Applicant is cautioned that the amendment should meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and it must be apparent that he/she was in possession of the amended design at the time of original filing. If new drawings are prepared as a response to this rejection care should be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. 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. 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. Conclusion The claim is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for the reasons set forth above. The references cited but not applied are cumulative art related to the claimed design. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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. Contact Information Applicant is reminded that any reply to this Refusal must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE M LEECH whose telephone number is (571)272-1769. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Sandra Snapp can be reached on (571)272-8364. 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. Reply Reminder Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b). Discussion of the Merits of the Application All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below. Telephonic or in person interviews A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner). The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at: Nicole.Leech@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner’s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call. Email Communications The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information. Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence The USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by: Online via the USPTO's Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450 Mailing should be done sufficiently in advance to ensure the USPTO receipt prior to reply period expiration Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300) (Do Not Fax Formal Drawings) Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window For additional information regarding responding to office actions see: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions Note that correspondence received will appear in the Patent Center, which may be viewed by the applicant at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov /N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2914 /SANDRA SNAPP/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2914
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 03, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Oct 23, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 21, 2026
Response Filed
Aug 20, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1140772
Earring
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent D1140775
Pendant
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent D1140773
Earring
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent D1140774
Earring
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent D1107584
Pendant
1y 10m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
98%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+3.4%)
2y 1m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 146 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