Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/282,560

Installation Structure and Electronic Device

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Sep 18, 2023
Examiner
MERCADO, LOUIS A
Art Unit
3677
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD.
OA Round
4 (Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
529 granted / 666 resolved
+27.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
709
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§102
44.8%
+4.8% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 666 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . This is a final Office action responsive to the reply filed on 12/23/2025. Claims 1, 4-6, 9 and 21 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 17-20 have been canceled. Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16 and 21 are pending. 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, 4-6, 8, 9, 12, 15,16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiedemann (EP 0179754), in view of Emoto et al. (JP 2005040334). Regarding claim 1, Tiedemann discloses an installation structure, comprising a main body part, and a connector and a magnetic assembly disposed on the main body part (see annotated Fig. 1), wherein the connector is configured to be connected with an electronic price tag (see annotated Fig. 1); the magnetic assembly comprises a first member which is a magnet configured to be magnetically connected with an installation foundation made of an iron material (see annotated Fig. 1); the connector is configured to be detachably connected with the electronic price tag (see annotated Fig. 1), a direction of a magnetic attraction force between the first member and the installation foundation is parallel to a direction of a gravity of the installation foundation (see annotated Fig. 1). the main body part comprises a back plate and a side plate fixedly connected with the back plate, a plane where the back plate is located intersects with a plane where the side plate is located, the plane where the back plate is located is parallel to a lower surface of the installation foundation, the first member is disposed on the back plate, and the connector is disposed on the side plate (see annotated Fig. 1); and the back plate is provided with a placement groove and at least a portion of the first member is fixed into the placement groove (see annotated Fig. 1). Tiedemann does not disclose the connector comprises a first buckle group and a second buckle group that are disposed opposite to each other, the first buckle group comprises at least one first buckle and the second buckle group comprises at least one second buckle and the at least one first buckle and the at least one second buckle are both configured to be snapped in hook grooves on the electronic price tag. However, Emoto et al. teaches the connector comprises a first buckle group and a second buckle group that are disposed opposite to each other, the first buckle group comprises at least one first buckle and the second buckle group comprises at least one second buckle and the at least one first buckle and the at least one second buckle are both configured to be snapped in hook grooves on the electronic price tag (see annotated Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector from Tiedemann with the connector from Emoto et al. in order to engage an electronic price tag. Regarding claim 4, Tiedemann discloses, further comprising: a first bonding part (40) disposed in the placement groove, and the first member is bonded in the placement groove through the first bonding part (see annotated Fig. 1, and Fig. 7). Regarding claim 5, Tiedemann discloses, wherein the placement groove has an opening facing the installation foundation and the first member protrudes from the opening (see annotated Fig. 1). Regarding claim 6, Tiedemann discloses the claimed invention except for a distance between a surface of the first member close to the installation foundation and a surface of the back plate away from the installation foundation is between 3mm and 3.5mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a distance between a surface of the first member close to the installation foundation and a surface of the back plate away from the installation foundation is between 3mm and 3.5mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).6 Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tiedemann, in view of Emoto et al. discloses, wherein a viscous adhesive force of the first bonding part (40) is greater than a total gravity of the main body part, the connector and the electronic price tag (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2, and Fig. 7). Regarding claim 9, Tiedemann discloses, wherein the back plate is perpendicular to the side plate (see annotated Fig. 1). Regarding claim 12, the combination of Tiedemann, in view of Emoto et al. discloses, wherein the first buckle group and the second buckle group are arranged at interval in a height direction of the installation structure (see annotated Fig. 2). Regarding claim 15, the combination of Tiedemann, in view of Emoto et al. discloses an electronic device, comprising an electronic price tag and the installation structure, wherein the electronic price tag is connected with the connector (see annotated Fig. 2). Regarding claim 16, the combination of Tiedemann, in view of Emoto et al. discloses, wherein the electronic price tag comprises a display part and a projection part located at a side of the display part and the connector is connected with the projection part (see annotated Fig. 2). Regarding claim 21, the combination of Tiedemann, in view of Emoto et al. discloses, wherein the magnetic attraction force of the first member is greater than a total gravity of the installation structure and the electronic price tag (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2). PNG media_image1.png 322 748 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 412 524 media_image2.png Greyscale Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-8 filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Tiedemann broadly discloses the plane where the back plate (see segment A-B) is located is parallel to a lower surface of the installation foundation, the first member is disposed on the back plate; and the back plate is provided with a placement groove and at least a portion of the first member is fixed into the placement groove (see annotated Fig. 1). The back plate (see segment A-B) from Tiedemann is generally parallel to the lower surface of the installation foundation, and having a side perpendicular to the installation foundation, same as the instant application. Tiedemann also discloses a placement groove with a L-shape or V-shape with the first member fixed into the placement groove. Applicant's arguments are more limiting than the claimed invention. Examiner’s Comment In view of applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted in the reply filed on 12/23/2025, the claim objections and rejections under 35 USC § 112 indicated in the prior Office action have been withdrawn. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LOUIS A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Jason W. San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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. /LOUIS A. MERCADO/ Examiner Art Unit 3677 /JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 18, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
May 19, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 23, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599246
BED SHEET RETENTION SYSTEMS, SYSTEM COMPONENTS, AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12569038
GARMENTS WITH SEMI-PRECIOUS STONE SNAPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557883
SYSTEM FOR INTERLOCKING FASTENER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12553495
CORD STOPPER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12540639
Fastening Clip
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+17.9%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 666 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