Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/107,468

DEVICE COMPATIBLE MOUNTING STAND

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 08, 2023
Examiner
MCKINNON, TERRELL L
Art Unit
3632
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
4 (Final)
26%
Grant Probability
At Risk
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
38%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 26% of cases
26%
Career Allow Rate
19 granted / 72 resolved
-25.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
82
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
50.4%
+10.4% vs TC avg
§102
29.9%
-10.1% vs TC avg
§112
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 72 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s amendment filed November 18, 2025. Claims 1-2 and 21-25 are pending on the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 1. 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. 2. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 3. Claims 1 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoglan et al. (US D560,221) in view of Erwin (US D437,772). Re. Cl. 1, Hoglan et al. discloses: a fixed plate mount for equipment comprising: a device mounting plate configured for the electronic device to be mounted onto the device mounting plate, wherein the device mounting plate comprises one or more device holes; and a surface mounting plate, wherein the surface mounting plate comprises one or more surface holes, wherein the one or more device holes align with the one or more surface holes, wherein the surface mounting plate is configured to be mounted onto a surface, wherein the device mounting plate and the surface mounting plate are configured to be assembled together by fastening the device mounting plate to the surface mounting plate through one or more of a mechanical fastening mechanism or a non-mechanical fastening mechanism. Hoglan fails to disclosed the following limitations. However, Erwin teaches the very well-known scope / idea of a single central aperture extending laterally across the surface, the lateral extent of the aperture extending beyond a lateral extent of mounting holes disposed on opposing sides of the surface plate such that each side of the central aperture extends beyond a pair of mounting holes corresponding to that side (Figs. 1-5). It would have been obvious and very well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoglan’s mount for equipment with Erwin’s scope / idea of a single central aperture extending laterally across the surface plate, the lateral extent of the aperture extending beyond a lateral extent of mounting holes disposed on opposing sides of the surface plate such that each side of the central aperture extends beyond a pair of mounting holes corresponding to that side. Wherein when combined with Hoglan et al. mount for equipment comprising a fixed plate mount for a device mounting plate and a surface mounting plate the central aperture and mounting holes would be coplanar. Doing so would provide a central aperture large enough to accommodate any intended use based on a given work environment. Re. Cls. 21-22, Hoglan et al. discloses: the surface mounting plate comprises a slot on each of two opposing sides thereof; and the device mounting plate comprises a corresponding tab on each of two opposing sides thereof. Re. Cls. 23-25, Hoglan et al. discloses: each tab of the device mounting plate is configured to slidably engage a corresponding slot of the surface mounting plate to secure the device mounting plate to the surface mounting plate; wherein the tabs and slots are dimensioned to provide a friction fit and prevent lateral displacement of the device mounting plate relative to the surface mounting plate; and wherein the tabs and slots are aligned such that the device mounting plate is secured to the surface mounting plate via a downward sliding motion. 4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoglan et al. (US D560,221) in view of Erwin (US D437,772) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Chen (US 2014/0096404). Re. Cl. 2, Hoglan et al., as modified by Erwin fails to discloses: the surface mounting plate is mounted onto a wall surface using one or more of one or more screws or one or more anchors. However, Chen teaches the very well-known use of surface mounting plate (21) including a single central aperture (Figs. 2 and 12-14) extending laterally across the surface mounting plate, the lateral extent of the aperture being greater than a lateral spacing between each pair of mounting holes disposed on opposing sides of the surface mounting plate (Figs. 2 and 12-14). Chen also teaches: the surface mounting plate is mounted onto a wall surface using one or more of one or more screws or one or more anchors (Figs. 11-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoglan’s et al. plate mount with Chen’s surface mounting plate being mounted onto a wall surface using one or more of one or more screws or one or more anchors. Doing so would provide a stable and secure connections for surface mounting plate. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 21-25 have been considered and found to be persuasive. Applicant States, it is clear from the drawings of Erwin that, “the surface mounting plate includes a single central aperture extending laterally across the surface mounting plate, the lateral extent of the aperture extending beyond a lateral extent of mounting holes disposed on opposing sides of the surface mounting plate such that each side of the central aperture extends beyond a pair of mounting holes corresponding to that side”, are not coplanar as required by claim 1. As stated above, Erwin was used to teach the idea / scope of the surface mounting plate includes a single central aperture extending laterally across the surface mounting plate, the lateral extent of the aperture extending beyond a lateral extent of mounting holes disposed on opposing sides of the surface mounting plate such that each side of the central aperture extends beyond a pair of mounting holes corresponding to that side. Wherein when combined with Hoglan et al. mount for equipment comprising a fixed plate mount for a device mounting plate and a surface mounting plate the central aperture and mounting holes would be coplanar. Conclusion 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 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRELL L MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-4797. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.. 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, Terrell L McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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. /TERRELL L MCKINNON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 08, 2023
Application Filed
May 31, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 10, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 16, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 18, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 11, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12570022
HYBRID SAWHORSE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569871
MOUNTING SYSTEM FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH PAINTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12459434
ACTUATOR, REAR VIEW DEVICE AND VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Patent 12435918
INSTALLATION FOOT AND REFRIGERATOR HAVING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 07, 2025
Patent 12422062
HINGE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
26%
Grant Probability
38%
With Interview (+12.0%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 72 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