Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/094,409

TOOLBOX BAR ATTACHMENT FOR ATTACHING ACCESSORIES

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 09, 2023
Examiner
BUI, LUAN KIM
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Joshua M Keeler
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
1012 granted / 1469 resolved
-1.1% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
1495
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
37.4%
-2.6% vs TC avg
§102
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
§112
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1469 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
Continued Prosecution Application A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/04/2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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. In claim 1, the phrase “wherein the hang bar is spaced away from the sidewall of the toolbox to create a gap for the hang clip to enclose the hang bar” defines the hang bar in reference to a sidewall of a toolbox which is undefined and has not been positively claimed rendering the claims vague and indefinite because it is not clear what structural limitations applicant intends to encompass with such language. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels (2,665,869) in view of LoNigro (4,149,693). To the extent that the Examiner can determine the scope of the claims, Samuels discloses a hanging apparatus (1, 2, 11, 12, 14; Fig. 1) comprising a hang bar (14) having a hanging zone to mount a hang clip (11, 12) and a mounting zone (see Fig. 1 below; the mounting zone comprises two arm members with each arm member attached at an approximately perpendicular to the hang bar (14) having mounting apparatus deployed thereon to mount the hang bar on a support surface (1, 2)), and a hang clip (12) mounted on the hang bar in the hanging zone. The hang clip having a hook (11) deployed asymmetrically on an outer side of the hang clip facing away from a surface of the support surface. Samuels further discloses the cross section of the hanging zone of the hang bar is approximately matched with a cross section of an aperture (Fig. 2 or 7) of the hang clip to securely mount the hang clip on the hanging zone. The hang bar of Samuels is capable to be mounted on a sidewall of a toolbox instead of the upright bars (1, 2) with the hang bar is spaced away from the sidewall of the toolbox. Samuels also discloses the other claimed limitations except for the cross section of the hanging zone of the hang bar is matched with and is enclosed by the cross section of the aperture of the hang clip to securely mount the hang clip on the hanging zone as claimed. LoNigro discloses a hanging apparatus (10; Fig. 1) comprising a hang bar (18) having a hanging zone (20, 21) to mount a hang clip (36) and a mounting zone (22) having mounting apparatus (28-32) deployed thereon to mount the hang bar on a support surface (14) with the hang bar is spaced away from the support surface, and a hang clip (36) having an aperture (40). LoNigro further discloses the cross section of the hanging zone of the hang bar is matched with and is enclosed by a cross section of the aperture (40) of the hang clip to securely mount the hang clip on the hanging zone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of LoNigro to modify the hanging apparatus of Samuels so the hanging apparatus is constructed with the cross section of the hanging zone of the hang bar is matched with and is enclosed by the cross section of the aperture of the hang clip to securely mount the hang clip on the hanging zone as claimed for better securing the hang clip on the hang bar and to prevent the hang clip from accidentally falling off the hang bar. As to claim 2, Samuels discloses the hang bar is one of a flat hang bar (Fig. 1), a hang bar with bent arms (Fig. 1), a hang bar with S-curves, and a hang bar with a mid-section recess. As to claim 5, Samuels discloses the hanging apparatus comprises a spacer used with the flat hang bar to create a gap between the flat hang bar and the support surface/the sidewall of the toolbox (Fig. 1 below discloses one of the two arm members is considered as a spacer as claimed). As to claim 6, Samuels further discloses the hook of the hang clip is one of a flat hook, a finger hook, a J-shaped hook (Fig. 1), and an S-shaped hook. As to claim 7, LoNigro further discloses the cross section of the hang bar and the cross section of the aperture of the hang clip have a rectangular shape (Fig. 3). As to claim 8, see Fig. 3 of LoNigro. As to claim 9, the hanging apparatus of Samuels as modified further fails to show the cross section of the hang bar and the cross section of the aperture of the hang clip comprise one of a J shape, a U shape, a square shape, a circular shape and a triangular shape in lieu of the rectangular shape as disclosed by LoNigro. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hanging apparatus of Samuels as modified so the hanging apparatus is constructed with the cross section of the hang bar and the cross section of the aperture of the hang clip comprise one of a J shape, a U shape, a square shape, a circular shape and a triangular shape instead of the rectangular shape because the selection of the specific shape for the cross section of the hang bar and the cross section of the aperture would have been an obvious matter of design choice inasmuch as the resultant structures will work equally well. As to claim 10, Samuels discloses the support surface (1, 2) is a vertically oriented wall. The hanging apparatus of Samuels as modified is capable to mount on the support surface is a vertically oriented wall of a toolbox. PNG media_image1.png 246 376 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 or 2 above, and further in view of The Official Notice. Samuels discloses the hanging apparatus as above and further discloses a weld/seam (19) formed between a body (18) of the hang clip (12) and the hook (11; Fig. 2 and column 2, lines 31-36). To the extent that the hanging apparatus of Samuels as modified further fails to show a seam in the hang clip to allow mounting the hang clip onto the mounting zone of the hang bar as claimed. The Official Notice is taken of an old and conventional practice of providing a device formed from two separate pieces and join together to form the device instead of the device formed from a single piece. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of The Official Notice to modify the hanging apparatus of Samuels as modified so the hang clip comprises a seam to allow mounting the hang clip onto the mounting zone of the hang bar to facilitate mounting and because it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments with respect to all rejected claims have been considered but are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN K BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4552. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F, 7-4. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531 or orlando.aviles-bosques@uspto.gov. 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. /LUAN K BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 09, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 16, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jul 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589612
MODULAR DESKTOP CRAFT UTENSILS STORAGE SYSTEM FOR STORING CRAFT UTENSILS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589906
PACKAGE WITH PUSH TAB LOCKING MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583658
CARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581899
FILTER MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575702
PRODUCT DISPENSER IN GEL OR CREAM FORM
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+28.7%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1469 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