Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/244,418

JIG FOR FORMING STRUCTURAL BUILDING MEMBER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 11, 2023
Examiner
SAUNDERS, ANNA JOSEPHINE
Art Unit
2855
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Australian Engineered Solutions Pty Ltd
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
23 granted / 30 resolved
+8.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
50
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
66.7%
+26.7% vs TC avg
§102
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§112
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 30 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 . 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 1, 2, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papsdorf (US Patent 4998336) “Papsdorf”, in view of Eure et al. (US Patent 6499206) “Eure”. Regarding claim 1, Papsdorf discloses in figure 1, a jig (10) for wooden beam (11) construction, the jig (10) adapted to hold in position an upper beam above a lower beam (see figure below, excerpt from Papsdorf; Fig. 1), the upper beam in or overlapping the lower beams vertical footprint (Fig. 1). PNG media_image1.png 236 401 media_image1.png Greyscale Papsdorf does not disclose a fastener dispenser mounted on a translocatable carriage. Eure teaches in figure 2, a fastener dispenser (32) mounted on a translocatable carriage (34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Eure’s fastener dispenser mounted on a translocatable carriage in Papsdorf’s jig for wooden beam construction, improving fastening speed and efficiency. Regarding claim 2, Papsdorf and Eure disclose the jig (Papsdorf; 10) for wooden beam construction as claimed in claim 1, wherein the upper beam is adapted to be attached indirectly to the lower beam with an arrangement of mid supports (see labelled figure above) bridging the upper and lower beams, the mid support in the form of wooden blocks or boards (Papsdorf; Column 4; Lines 17-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Papsdorf’s wooden mid supports in Papsdorf and Eure’s jig, making the wooden beam stronger and more stable for construction. Regarding claim 5, Papsdorf and Eure disclose the jig for wooden beam construction (Papsdorf; 10), wherein the translocatable carriage (Eure; 34) is adapted to translocate along the jig (Papsdorf; 10) on an upper and lower rail (Eure; Column 4; Lines 23-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Eure’s translocatable carriage on an upper and lower rail in Papsdorf and Eure’s jig, making it easier to move the fastener dispenser to the correct location. Regarding claim 6, Papsdorf and Eure disclose the jig for wooden beam construction (Papsdorf; 10), wherein operation of the translocatable carriage (Eure; 34) and fastener dispenser (Eure; 32) is partially or fully automated (Eure; Column 6; Lines 10-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Eure’s translocatable carriage and fastener dispenser partially or fully automated, making the process more efficient and easier for operation. Regarding claim 7, Papsdorf and Eure disclose the jig for wooden beam construction (Papsdorf; 10), wherein the translocatable carriage (Eure; 34) includes a roller (Eure; 38) adapted to roll across an upper surface of the upper beam. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Eure’s translocatable carriage include a roller, making the process more efficient and easier for operation. Regarding claim 8, Papsdorf and Eure disclose the jig for wooden beam construction (Papsdorf; 10) as claimed in claim 7, wherein the roller (Eure; 38) is adapted to be located adjacent the dispenser units (Eure; 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Eure’s translocatable carriage with roller be adjacent to fastener dispensers, making the process faster and more efficient. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papsdorf and Eure, in view of Nelson (US Patent 3147484) “Nelson”. Regarding claim 3, Papsdorf and Eure disclose the jig (Papsdorf; 10) for wooden beam construction, and the fastener dispenser (Eure; 32). Papsdorf and Eure do not disclose a pair of dispenser units orientated so that the fasteners are ejected at a non-perpendicular angle. Nelson teaches in figure 1, pair of dispenser units (15) orientated so that the fasteners (12) are ejected at a non-perpendicular angle (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Nelson’s dispenser unit orientation in Papsdorf and Eure’s jig to eject the nail at a non-perpendicular angle, toe-nailing the nail into the board and creating a stronger angle joint. Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papsdorf and Eure, in view of Jaen (UPGPUB 20070006450) “Jaen”. Regarding claim 4, Papsdorf and Eure disclose the jig for wooden beam construction (Papsdorf; 10), the upper and lower wooden beams and clamping them together with the mid supports interposed between the upper and lower beams in the jig (Papsdorf; Fig. 1), locating the translocatable carriage (Eure; 34) at various points along the wooden beam (Papsdorf; 11) in line with the mid supports and inserting fasteners (Eure; “nail”) through the upper and lower beams (Papsdorf; upper and lower board of 11) into the mid supports (Papsdorf; 72) with the fastener dispenser (Eure; 32) to mechanically secure the wooden beam (Papsdorf; 11) together. Papsdorf and Eure do not disclose applying adhesive as part of their method. Jaen teaches applying adhesive ([0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Jaen’s method of applying adhesive in Papsdorf and Eure’s jig for wooden beam construction. Adhesive and nails provide immediate and long-term strength, making a stronger, more reliable joint. Regarding claim 9, Papsdorf, Eure, and Jaen disclose the jig for wooden beam construction (Papsdorf; 10) as claimed in claim 4, wherein the adhesive (Jaen; [0008]) is applied to only near-upward or downward facing surfaces, being between zero and 15 degrees from vertically facing (Jaen; [0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Jaen’s method of applying adhesive to only near-upward or downward facing surfaces, ensure adhesive is only placed where needed and minimizing waste and messes. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6528. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00 EST. 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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. /ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 /PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 11, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599979
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETECTING AND REMOVING SAP WOOD AND RAYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601580
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURED ASSEMBLY-FREE TOOL FOR MAINTENANCE OF VEHICLE ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595997
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CHECKING FOR MIS-ASSEMBLY OF BATTERY CELL ACTIVATION TRAY OR TWISTING THEREOF DURING OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590792
SHEET PROPERTY MEASUREMENT DEVICE AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583096
MARKING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MARKING
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
77%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+8.3%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 30 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