Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/221,580

LIFT NUT MOUNTING BRACKET FOR PREFABRICATED WALL PANELS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 13, 2023
Examiner
FIGUEROA, LUZ ADRIANA
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
A. Raymond et Cie
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
741 granted / 1080 resolved
+16.6% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
1093
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
49.4%
+9.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1080 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 3 in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 2, 8-15, 26-41 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 3. 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. 4. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the receiver opening” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 5. 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. 6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 7. Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tinnerman (US 2,394,729). Regarding claim 1, Tinnerman discloses a lift nut mounting bracket capable of being used for hoisting a building wall panel, the lift nut mounting bracket comprising: a side plate 14, (Fig 1, 3); a top plate 15 connected to the side plate at a first joint, the top plate including a first opening 16 therein; a receiving plate 13 adjacent to the top plate 15 (Fig 1-3); a receiver 20 formed in the receiving plate 13, the receiver being aligned with the first opening 16 in the top plate; (Fig 1-5) and a nut B received and retained in the receiver 20 (Fig 3-5). Regarding claim 3, Tinnerman discloses the receiver 20 is an opening having a shape that corresponds to the cross-sectional shape of the nut B (Fig 1-3). Regarding claim 4, Tinnerman discloses the receiver 20 has a hexagonal shape (Fig 2). Regarding claim 5, Tinnerman discloses the receiving plate 13 is spaced from and overlaps the top plate 15 (Fig 3). Regarding claim 6, Tinnerman discloses the side plate 14 is generally perpendicular to the top plate 15 (Fig 3). Regarding claim 20, Tinnerman discloses a plug (bolt E) inserted into the nut B (Fig 4). Regarding claim 21, Tinnerman discloses the plug includes a longitudinally extending shaft cooperable with threads of an internal threaded bore of the nut (Fig 4). 8. Claim(s) 1, 16-18, 20, 21, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kreider (US 3,118,480). Regarding claim 1, Kreider discloses a lift nut mounting bracket capable of being used for hoisting a building wall panel, the lift nut mounting bracket comprising: a side plate 15, (Fig 1, 3); a top plate 14 connected to the side plate at a first joint, the top plate including a first opening 21 therein (Fig 3, 4, 5); a receiving plate 9 adjacent to the top plate 14 (Fig 1, 3, 4); a receiver (formed by elements 10), formed in the receiving plate 9, the receiver being aligned with the first opening 21 in the top plate; (Fig 3, 4) and a nut 7 received and retained in the receiver (Fig 3, 4). Regarding claim 16, Kreider discloses the nut includes a flange 8 that retains the nut in the receiver (Fig 4). Regarding claim 17, Kreider discloses the receiving plate 9 is separate from the side plate 15 and the top plate 14 (Fig 3, 4). Regarding claim 18, Kreider discloses the side plate 15 and the top plate 14 are monolithic in construction, and the receiving plate 9 is formed separate from the side plate and the top plate (Fig 1, 3). Regarding claim 20, Kreider discloses a plug (bolt 26) inserted into the nut 7 (Fig 1, 3). Regarding claim 21, Kreider discloses the plug includes a longitudinally extending shaft cooperable with threads of an internal threaded bore of the nut (Fig 1, 3, 4). Regarding claim 25, Kreider discloses the shaft includes an outwardly extending annular flange (horizontal portion between the head 26 and the shaft), (Fig 1, 3). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 9. 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. 10. Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimoto (JP 2004162276). Regarding claim 1, Kimoto discloses a lift nut mounting bracket 14 for hoisting a building wall panel, the lift nut mounting bracket comprising: a side plate 28 (Fig 2-4); a top plate 27 connected to the side plate at a first joint, the top plate 27 including a first opening therein (that receives bolt 23) (Fig 3, 4); a receiving plate 31 adjacent to the top plate 27; a receiver (spaces formed by portions 29, 30) formed in the receiving plate 31, the receiver being aligned with the first opening in the top plate 27 (Fig 3, 4). Kimoto discloses a connecting fitting including a lower bolt 23 and an upper bolt member 17 securing together elements 16 and 19 with a nut secured to the upper bolt member 17 at the top of the connecting fitting and a bolt head 33 received and retained in the receiver (Fig 2,4 ), but does not disclose a nut received and retained in the receiver. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the arrangement of Kimoto to have the lower bolt 23 secured above the upper bolt 17 with the nut secured within the receiver and the bolt head at the top of the connecting fitting since such modification would have involved a mere reversal of parts. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the arrangement of the lower and upper bolt members. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense at the time the invention was made. As modified, the nut would be received and retained in the receiver. Regarding claim 6, Kimoto discloses the side plate 28 is generally perpendicular to the top plate 27 (Fig 3). Regarding claim 7, Kimoto discloses the side plate 28 includes a plurality of apertures 25 for attaching the mounting bracket on a frame member of a wall panel (Fig 2-4). Regarding claim 17, Kimoto discloses the receiving plate 31 is separate from the side plate 28 and the top plate 27 (Fig 3). Regarding claim 18, Kimoto discloses the side plate 28 and the top plate 17 are monolithic in construction, and the receiving plate31 is formed separate from the side plate and the top plate (Fig 3). Regarding claim 19, Kimoto discloses as discussed in claim 1, but does not disclose the receiving plate includes a plurality of raised circular surfaces. However, it would have been an obvious engineering design to have the surfaces of the receiving plate and the top plate riveted creating a plurality of raised circular surfaces in order to keep the top and receiving plates secured during installation previously to the insertion of the bolt. Regarding claim 20, Kimoto discloses a plug (bolt 18) inserted into the nut (Fig 2). Regarding claim 21, Kimoto discloses the plug includes a longitudinally extending shaft cooperable with threads of an internal threaded bore of the nut (Fig 2-4). Allowable Subject Matter 11. Claims 22-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art alone or in obvious combination absent hindsight discloses applicant’s invention of a lift nut mounting bracket having a side plate, a top plate, a first opening, a receiving plate, a receiver, a nut having the structural limitations and interconnectable in the manner as recited in the claims in combination with the limitations towards the plug having a lamella, a flexible umbrella cap, an annular ring. There is no motivation to modify the prior art of record to reach applicants claimed invention, to the contrary as such a modification would alter the inventive structure and manner in which the prior art is intended to operate. Conclusion 13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-8281. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM MONDAY-FRIDAY. 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, BRIAN GLESSNER can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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. /ADRIANA FIGUEROA/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3633 02/04/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 13, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595028
PROTECTIVE COVER FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590460
REINFORCING BAR CAGE CONNECTORS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTING REINFORCING BAR CAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590469
CARPORT PERGOLA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577779
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571511
INTEGRATED CEILING AND LIGHT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+21.5%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1080 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