Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/221,583

Support Structures

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 13, 2023
Examiner
MORROW, JASON S
Art Unit
3612
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Apple INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
1166 granted / 1385 resolved
+32.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1420
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
33.3%
-6.7% vs TC avg
§102
34.4%
-5.6% vs TC avg
§112
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1385 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schryer (US Patent 9,187,937). Re claim 1, Schryer discloses a support assembly for a vehicle, comprising a bracket (14, figure 1) coupled to a structural portion (24, figure 1) of the vehicle and defining a channel (30, figure 1), and a hand rail (16, figure 1) including an end portion (18, or 18’) configured to interface with the channel, wherein the bracket is configured to prevent relative motion between the end portion of the hand rail and the bracket when a first load is applied to the hand rail in a first direction (in a direction downward with respect to the handle), and the bracket is configured to allow relative motion between the end portion of the hand rail and the bracket when a second load is applied to the hand rail in a second direction (the direction shown by the arrows in figure 6) that is different than the first direction. Re claim 2, the second direction (the direction shown by the arrows in figure 6) oblique to the first direction (the direction downward with respect to the handle). Re claim 3, the first direction is oriented obliquely to a direction of travel of the vehicle (the downward direction is oblique to whatever direction the vehicle is traveling). Re claim 5, the bracket (14, figure 1) is fixed to the structural portion and the end portion (18, 18’) is configured to move relative to the bracket (as shown in figure 6). Re claim 6, the end portion is fixed to the bracket (as shown in figure 3, the end portions are fixed prior to the application of a force such as that shown in figure 6) and the bracket is configured to move relative to the structural portion (as shown in figure 7, the portion of the bracket 38 is configured to move relative to the structural portion when the force is applied as shown in figured 6 and 7). Re claim 7, Schryer discloses a support assembly for a vehicle, comprising a bracket (14, figure 1) coupled to a structural portion (24) of the vehicle and defining a channel (30, figure 1), a flange (20, 20’, figure 1) at least partially positioned in the channel and configured to move along the channel, and a hand rail (16, figure 1) comprising an end portion that is coupled to the flange and is configured to move with the flange as the flange moves along the channel, wherein the bracket is configured to prevent the flange from moving in a first direction (the downward direction in relation to the handle shown in figure 1) when a first load is applied to the hand rail in the first direction, and the bracket is configured to allow the flange to move in a second direction (the direction shown by the arrows in figure 6) that is different than the first direction when a second load is applied to the hand rail in the second direction and the second load is greater than a threshold value. Re claim 8, the flange includes a first portion (46, figure 5) positioned within the channel and a second portion (18) coupled to the first portion, wherein the second portion is coupled to the hand rail and extends away from the channel (in a direction toward the handle from the first portion in figure 3). Re claim 9, the first portion (46, figure 5) is oriented obliquely to the second portion (18, figure 3). Re claim 12, the bracket includes a deformable portion (38, figure 5) configured to resist motion of the flange in the second direction when the second load is less than the threshold value and allow motion of the flange in the second direction when the second load is greater than the threshold value (as shown by figures 3, 6, and 7). Re claim 14, Schryer discloses a support assembly for a vehicle, comprising a bracket (14, figure 1) coupled to a structural portion of the vehicle and defining a first geometric feature (the hole shape shown in figure 5); and a hand rail (16, figure 1) including an outer surface that defines a second geometric feature (16) that is complementary to the first geometric feature; wherein the second geometric feature is configured to prevent the hand rail from moving in a first direction (downwardly with respect to the handrail in figure 1) when the second geometric feature is engaged with the first geometric feature and a first load is applied to the hand rail in the first direction, and the second geometric feature is configured to allow the hand rail to move in a second direction (the direction shown by the arrows in figure 6) that is different than the first direction when a second load is applied to the hand rail in the second direction, wherein the second geometric feature is configured to disengage from the first geometric feature during application of the second load to the hand rail in the second direction (as shown by figure 7). Re claim 15, the first geometric feature is a recess (as shown in figure 5) and the second geometric feature is a protrusion (46, as shown in figure 5). Re claim 16, the first direction is a rotation of the hand rail relative to the bracket (the friction between 46 and the bracket prevents its rotation). Re claim 17, the bracket includes a deformable portion (38, 40, figure 5) configured to resist motion of the hand rail in the second direction when the second load is less than a threshold value and to allow motion of the hand rail in the second direction when the second load is greater than the threshold value. Re claim 18, the deformable portion is configured to deform when the second load is greater than the threshold value to allow motion of the hand rail in the second direction (as shown by figures 3 and 5). Re claim 19, a surface of the bracket defines a channel (shown by figure 5) and the first geometric feature, wherein an end portion of the hand rail (46, figure 5) is configured to fit within the channel and move along the channel. Re claim 20, the second direction (the direction shown by the arrows in figure 6) is oblique to the first direction (downwardly with respect to the handrail in figure 1). 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. Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schryer (US Patent 9,187,937). Re claim 4, Schryer discloses all the limitation of the claim, as applied above, except for the bracket being configured to allow the end portion to move between approximately ten millimeters and approximately twenty millimeters in the second direction when the second load is applied to the hand rail in the second direction. Schryer is silent as to exactly how far the end portion of the bracket is configured to allow the end portion to move. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a support assembly, such as that disclosed by Schryer, to have the bracket be configured to allow the end portion to move between approximately ten millimeters and approximately twenty millimeters in the second direction when the second load is applied to the hand rail in the second direction, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and doing so would be merely optimizing the performance of the device depending on what vehicle it is used in. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10, 11, and 13 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. The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 10 and 11 is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to the flange being secured within the channel on a first side by the hand rail and on a second side by a head portion of a threaded coupler that connects the hand rail to the flange. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 13 is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to the deformable portion being configured to break when the second load is greater than the threshold value to allow motion of the flange in the second direction. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references all disclose vehicle handle devices. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason S Morrow whose telephone number is (571)272-6663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.. 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571) 270-5500. 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. /JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 September 28, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 13, 2023
Application Filed
May 24, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595002
VEHICLE CROSSMEMBER, VEHICLE COMPRISING SUCH A VEHICLE CROSSMEMBER, AND SET OF VEHICLE CROSSMEMBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590484
WIRE ROPE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584340
PANEL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584344
MOTORIZED COVERING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583295
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A VEHICLE ENCLOSURE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
84%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+10.8%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1385 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