Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/162,501

Advanced Holding Apparatus

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jan 31, 2023
Examiner
SHAKERI, HADI
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Grip Holdings LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
1119 granted / 1808 resolved
-8.1% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+37.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
67 currently pending
Career history
1875
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.0%
+6.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1808 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
2DETAILED ACTION 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1, 2 and 6-16 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lukes (2013/0213193). PNG media_image1.png 672 504 media_image1.png Greyscale Lukes discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., an advanced holding apparatus 20 comprising: at least one screw bit body 66; an attachment body 60; 5the at least one screw bit body comprising a plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls 70, 72, a plurality of intermittent sidewalls defined by every other 70, 72, a first base tip surface, a second base intersection of 60 and 66; the plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls comprising a first lateral edge defined by first side of 72, a second lateral edge defined by the opposite side of 72, a bracing surface defined by one side of axial convex surface of 70, a second bracing surface defined by the opposite side of axial convex surface of 70, Fig. 4, and at least one engagement cavity through 72, Fig. 4; the plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls 70, 72 being radially positioned about 10a rotation axis of the at least one screw bit body Fig. 3; the plurality of intermittent sidewalls intermittent 70, 72 being radially positioned about 10a rotation axis of the at least one screw bit body Fig. 3; at least one of the plurality of intermittent sidewalls drive side 82 defined by 70 being flat zero degree drive angle defining a perpendicular line to the drive side [0069]; the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge being positioned at opposite ends of the laterally-bracing sidewall Figs. 3 and 4; the first bracing surface being positioned adjacent to the first lateral edge Fig. 4; the second bracing surface being positioned adjacent to the second lateral edge Fig. 4; the at least one engagement cavity 72 being positioned between the first bracing surface and the second bracing surface Fig. 4; the at least one engagement cavity 72 extending into the at least one screw bit body from the first base toward the second base Figs. 2 and 4; an entire cross-section of the at least one engagement cavity being parallel to the first base and the second base broken line, Fig. 2; and the attachment body being connected adjacent to the second base Fig. 2. Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art Lukes) meets the limitations, i.e., the advanced holding apparatus as claimed in claim 1, comprising: the first lateral edge being angular in shape Fig. 2; and the second lateral edge being angular in shape Fig. 2. Regarding claim 6, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the advanced holding apparatus as claimed in claim 1, comprising: the first bracing surface and the second bracing surface each positioned relative to the plurality of intermittent sidewalls by a bracing angle; and the bracing angle being an obtuse angle Fig. 2. Regarding claims 7-9, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the advanced holding apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of intermittent sidewalls is flat Fig. 6 alpha at 0 degrees [0069], convex and/or concave Figs. 10-12. Regarding claim 10, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the advanced holding apparatus as claimed in claim 1, comprising: the plurality of intermittent sidewalls tapering diametrically from the first base to the second base, wherein a distance from the plurality of intermittent sidewalls to the rotational axis is smaller at the first base than at the second base Fig. 2. Regarding claim 11, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the advanced holding apparatus as claimed in claim 1, comprising: the plurality of intermittent sidewalls tapering laterally from the first base to the second base, wherein a width of the plurality of intermittent sidewalls is smaller at the first base than at the second base Fig. 2. Regarding claim 12, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the advanced holding apparatus as claimed in claim 1, comprising: the first bracing surface tapering laterally from the first base to the second base, wherein a width of the first bracing surface is smaller at the first base than at the second base; and the second bracing surface tapering laterally from the first base to the second base, wherein a width of the second bracing surface is smaller at the first base than at the second base Fig. 2. Regarding claim 13, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the advanced holding apparatus as claimed in claim 1, comprising: the at least one engagement cavity 72 tapering laterally from the first base to the second base, wherein a width of the at least one engagement cavity is smaller at the first base than at the second base Fig. 2. Regarding claim 14, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the advanced holding apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a diameter of the screw bit body is greater at the second base than a diameter of the screw bit body at the first base Fig. 2. Regarding claim 15, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the advanced holding apparatus as claimed in claim 1 comprising: the first base, the first bracing surface, and the second bracing surface each being flat Fig. 5, alpha at zero [0069]; and the first base being oriented perpendicular to the first bracing surface and the second bracing surface Fig. 2. Regarding claim 16, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the advanced holding apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one engagement cavity is rounded Fig. 2. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim 3 is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA in view of Huang (8,640,575). PNG media_image2.png 276 335 media_image2.png Greyscale PA (prior art, Luke) meets all of the limitations of claim 3, as described above, except for disclosing first and second lateral edges to be radial in shape. Huang teaches a ball end 1 defining radial edges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of PA with the ball end as taught by Huang to correspondingly shaped workpieces. Claims 4 and 5 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA in view of Lukes et al. (9,682,464 “Lukes`464”). PNG media_image3.png 320 265 media_image3.png Greyscale PA (prior art, Luke) meets all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above, except for the first bracing surface and the second bracing surface defined by sides of 70 each positioned relative to the plurality of intermittent sidewalls defined by every other 70, 72 by an acute bracing angle. Lukes`464 teaches a driver with a protruding lead 24 with a rounded tip 26 defining an angle between the bracing surfaces Figs. 6A-6G. Lukes`464 further in Figs. 8A-8E discloses different shapes for the protruding lead. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of PA with the protruding lead as taught by Luke`464 for ease of engaging the cavity of the workpiece and to reduce scratching. Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the angle, e.g., acute or at a right angle depending on the workpiece and/or operational parameters and since it has been held that changing shape, dependent on work-piece parameters, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 US PQ 284(CCPA1954). Claim 17 is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA in view of Pchola et al. (10,100,864 “Pchola”). PA (prior art, Luke) meets all of the limitations of claim 17, as described above, except for the at least one engagement cavity to be angular, comprising a plurality of angled sections. PNG media_image4.png 315 315 media_image4.png Greyscale Pchola teaches driving tools having angular engagement cavities Figs. 1 and 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of PA with angular engaging cavity as taught by Pchola adept the tool for engaging either a Phillips head or a Robertson ® head. Conclusion 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. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed November 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that base reference Luke, fails to disclose the newly added feature of at least one of the plurality of intermittent sidewalls being flat. Applicant argues that shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 of Lukes, each of the intermittent sidewalls are convex in shape and not flat. Applicant further remarks that with regard to the spec on section 0069, the angle a does not determine the shape of the intermittent sidewall. Rather, angle α is measured between the drive side transition 82 and a radial line 98 extending from the rotational axis A" [0069]. applicant states that the angle α is measured between the top of the lobe and the adjacent bracing surfaces. Thus, taking angle a at 0 degrees would not alter the shape of the intermittent sidewall from being convex (as seen in FIG. 7) to being flat. Examienr, respectfully disagrees. Figs. 6 and 7 and the description in paragraph [0069] discloses a range of angles of between zero to ten degrees for the angle alpha, stating “[A] a zero degree drive angle provides a line perpendicular to the drive side transition surface that is parallel to a tangent of the inner and/or outer lobe diameters”. The vertical, tangent side defines at least one of the sidewalls to be “flat” at least partially. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F. 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, Monica S. Carter can be reached on 571 272 4475. The fax 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. /Hadi Shakeri/ February 6, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 31, 2023
Application Filed
May 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 04, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600017
SPOUT SEPARATING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594659
FLUID-POWERED TORQUE WRENCH WITH FLUID PUMP CONTROLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594795
TYRE SUPPORT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12564918
TOOL BIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12552009
Tool
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+37.3%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1808 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