Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/264,001

STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENT FOR A STRUCTURE FOR SECURING A METAL COIL

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Aug 02, 2023
Examiner
MALIKASIM, JONATHAN L
Art Unit
3645
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Vix Logística S A
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
281 granted / 352 resolved
+27.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -1% lift
Without
With
+-0.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
382
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
43.6%
+3.6% vs TC avg
§102
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
§112
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 352 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 2/6/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new teaching reference: Rediehs US20040009050. The previous drawing objection(s) has/have been addressed and is/are withdrawn. The previous claim objection(s) has/have been addressed and is/are withdrawn. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) has/have been addressed and is/are withdrawn. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “wherein each containment device (3) includes an articulation point (30) positioned at a lower part thereof such that, in an open position” (the drawings do not appear to show an open position that indicates how the different positions of components relative to the articulation point 30; for example, do any components swing, slide, rotate, pivot, or telescope at the articulation point 30?; Figures 2-4 are highly schematic with limited structural details in showing the articulation point 30, and it is unclear what type of mechanical motion is associated with the articulation point 30) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the limitation “wherein each containment device (3) includes an articulation point (30) positioned at a lower part thereof such that, in an open position” (the drawings do not appear to show an open position; it is unclear if Figure 1 is supposed to show articulation point 30 since Figure 1 does not have corresponding lead lines and reference numerals, and Figure 1 appears to be structurally different from Figures 2-4) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). The drawings are objected to because in the 2/6/26 amended Figures 2-3, the central plane CP vertical line appears to be off-center/mis-aligned when it is understood that it should be centered as shown in the originally-filed 8/2/23 drawings. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference character “EPM” in Figure 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is the open position in relation to the articulation point 30 and what type of mechanical motion is associated with the articulation point 30 to support the new limitation “wherein each containment device (3) includes an articulation point (30) positioned at a lower part thereof such that, in an open position”. While Figures 2-4 show the articulation point 30 and specification [031] mentions the articulation point 30, it remains unclear as to how the articulation point 30 provides any type of mechanical articulation. For example, does a structure associated with the articulation point 30 move, slide, pivot, rotate, telescope, or swing an any manner? Does the structure associated with the articulation point 30 have different positions that are shown in the drawings or sufficiently described in the disclosure? Does the structure associated with the articulation point 30 move in an articulated manner based on manual/human/operator, gravity, pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric input? Pending further comments/remarks/arguments from the applicant, it appears that applicant’s disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description to indicate that the applicant had possession of the new limitation “wherein each containment device (3) includes an articulation point (30) positioned at a lower part thereof such that, in an open position”. 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallo et al. US3061255 in view of Rediehs US20040009050. Regarding independent claim 1, Gallo discloses, in Figures 1-4, A constructive arrangement (Gallo; Fig. 1-4; pallet assembly 10) introduced in structure for fixation of a metal coil (Gallo; “coil C”; col. 1:9-11 “metal coils”), of the type to be associated to a vehicle loading platform (Gallo; railway flat car 12), comprising: at least one laying base (1) (Gallo; the assembly of the base plate 15 and the recited structures described below); at least one locking device (2) (Gallo; turnbuckle connection 42); said constructive arrangement introduced in structure for fixation of metal coil comprising: the laying base (1) comprises two adjacent platforms (10) (Gallo; lading retainer plates 16), symmetrically opposed and inclined toward a central plane (CP) of the laying base (1) (Gallo; Fig. 1 and 3 show the inclination); at least two containment devices (3) (Gallo; end walls 14), said containment devices (3) comprising at least one structural reinforcement device (31) (Gallo; hinged closure means 28); each one of the referred containment devices (3) comprising at least one concave region (32) (Gallo; cutout portions 27) centered with the central plane (CP) of the laying base (1) (Gallo; Fig. 1-4); wherein each containment device (3) (Gallo; end walls 14) includes a lower part (Gallo; the parts of the end walls 14) thereof such that, in an open position, the containment device (3) is positioned at a base level of the structure (Gallo; Fig. 3). PNG media_image1.png 738 1082 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 570 832 media_image2.png Greyscale Gallo does not disclose wherein each containment device (3) includes an articulation point (30) positioned at a lower part thereof such that, in an open position, the containment device (3) is positioned at a base level of the structure. Rediehs teaches wherein each containment device (3) includes an articulation point (30) positioned at a lower part thereof such that, in an open position, the containment device (3) is positioned at a base level of the structure (Rediehs; Fig. 8; [0033] hinges 210 for shield 84 that is “movable between a raised position 85 and a lowered position 86”). PNG media_image3.png 698 995 media_image3.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify each containment device as taught by Gallo to comprise an articulation point as taught by Rediehs for the purpose of providing additional space for maneuvering/loading/unloading the coil when the containment device is in the open position. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST). 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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. /JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 3/18/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 02, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 06, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602913
Apparatus For IDENTYFING OBJECT PRIORITY FOR AUTONOMOUS DRIVING CONTROL OF VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590807
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12488684
METHOD FOR PROVIDING AN ALREADY GENERATED TRAJECTORY OF A FIRST MOTOR VEHICLE FOR A SECOND MOTOR VEHICLE FOR FUTURE TRAVEL ALONG THE TRAJECTORY, COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT AND ASSISTANCE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12129748
ELECTRICAL SUBMERSIBLE PUMP Y-TOOL WITH PERMANENT COILED TUBING PLUG AND MILLABLE BALL VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 29, 2024
Patent 12116857
WELL ACCESS APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 15, 2024
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
80%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (-0.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 352 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