Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/284,157

CONNECTOR ARRANGEMENT FOR A GUIDE RAIL ARRANGEMENT

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Sep 26, 2023
Examiner
WILENSKY, MOSHE K
Art Unit
3726
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Festool GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
540 granted / 718 resolved
+5.2% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
758
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
70.4%
+30.4% vs TC avg
§102
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
§112
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 718 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION1 REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112: (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. Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 lacks a transitional phrase, such as ‘comprising’ that denotes the end of the preamble and the beginning of the claim body. Instead, claim 1 recites that it is a connector arrangement and then recites a series of wherein clauses. This is indefinite for two reasons. One, different transitional phrases have well understood claim interpretations, and their absence renders it unclear if the prior art may have elements beyond those explicitly recited in the claim. Additionally, claim 1 recites a parallel clamping force approximately or exactly parallel to the guide face. This constitutes a broader limitation followed by a narrower limitation, which is indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Applicant must choose one of the two limitations. Additionally, the term approximately is a relative term and is presumptively indefinite, because it is unclear how close to parallel the force must be to meet the limitation. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite ‘substantially parallel’ or merely parallel. Claim 6 recites the plug in sections. These plug in sections were introduced in claim 5, but claim 6 has been amended to depend from claim 1. As such, this constitutes improper antecedent basis. Examiner suggests amending claim 6 to depend from claim 5 (and has examined accordingly). Claim 13 recites the plug-in section and the plug-in receptacle. There is no antecedent basis for these terms. Claim 17 recites a guide rail. Parent claim 1 introduces guide rails. If applicant wishes to refer to one of these rails, it needs to be introduced as ‘a first guide rail of the guide rails or similar language. Claim 17 also recites the plug-in receptacle. There is no antecedent basis for this term. Claim 18 also lacks antecedent basis for the plug-in receptacle. All remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence. REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 102 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 1-4, 9, & 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 5,138,759 to Gruetzmacher. Claim 1 recites a connector arrangement for connecting two guide rails…[that] guid[e] a hand-held power tool. Gruetzmacher relates to such a connector. See Gruetzmacher col. 3, ll. 32-38. Claim 1 recites that the guide rails extend along longitudinal axes and can be releasably connected with each other by the connector arrangement on mutually opposite end faces. As a matter of claim construction, the guide rails are not claimed elements. Rather, claim 1 is only directed to the connector arrangement, i.e. the device that connects the rails together. (If applicant wishes to claim a system of the connector and the guide rails, they should amend the claim to do so explicitly.) The above limitation requires that the connector be capable of releasabl[e] connect[ion] and the connector must be capable of connecting two rails in a longitudinal direction on oppos[ing] end faces. Figure 2-3 of Gruetzmacher show a connector arrangement (52) designed to connect to guide rails (48, 50) on their oppos[ing] end faces. See Gruetzmacher col. 3, ln. 32 to col. 4, ln. 68 and Figs. 2-4.. The use of a screw (108) as part of the connection shows the connection is releasabl[e]. Id. Claim 1 recite that the guide rails have at mutually opposite sides a contact face for the guide rail to rest on a workpiece and a guide face for guiding the hand-held power tool and that the guide rails have a longitudinal guide face extending parallel to their respective longitudinal axis for guiding the hand-held power tool parallel to the respective longitudinal axis [with] the longitudinal guide face is at an angle to the guide face. These structures define the guide rails, which are not claimed elements. Nor does this claim feature suggest any necessary structure for the connector to require for interaction. Regardless, the guide rails (48, 50) of Gruetzmacher do have these structures. See Gruetzmacher Figs. 2-3. Claim 1 then recites the wherein the connector arrangement has…. Since this portion of the claim begins discussing the actual structures of the connector arrangement, examiner interprets this portion as defining the beginning of the claim body, with the above portions constituting the preamble. Examiner has further construed the claim as containing the ‘comprising’ claim transition for purposes of examination. Figure 4 of Gruetzmacher shows the connector arrangement (52) has at least one connector element (the plate minus the bolt) which has plug-in sections (88, 90) provided for inserting into plug-in receptacles (64, 80) on the opposite end faces of the guide rails. Claim 1 further recites the plug in sections [have]…clamping devices (98, 100) for clamping in the relevant plug-in receptable[s]. See Gruetzmacher col. 4, ll. 8-15 and Fig. 4. Claim 1 then recites that the clamping devices… are designed for sequential clamping. Gruetzmacher teaches that the clamping plate (52) is longitudinally slid into the two guide rails, such that clamp portion (98) contacts lip (68) of the plug in section (60). This creates a parallel clamping force because the two guide rails cannot move laterally relative to each other any more. Gruetzmacher then teaches the screw (104) is tightened, which pushes the contact points (98, 100) downward into the guide rail bottom. See Gruetzmacher col. 4, ll. 28-56. The tightening therefore creates a subsequent[t]…vertical clamping force component. Because the rails and connector share the same angled surface, the vertical clamping force is vertical to the guide face. Claim 2 recites that the clamping devices are designed to clamp with the vertical clamping force component while retaining the alignment of the longitudinal guide faces. This is the case in Gruetzmacher because tightening the bolt clamps vertically without affecting lateral alignment. Regarding claim 3, the connector element of Gruetzmacher is the plate (52) minus the bolt. This plate extends along a longitudinal axis as shown in figure 3. Claim 4 recites the connector arrangement has at least one parallel clamping device for clamping exclusively with the parallel clamping force. The plate (52) is defined as this device as it maintains the two plates in lateral alignment by exerting force horizontal force against the side walls of the guide rails. The bolt is then a separate vertical clamping device that is exclusively [for providing] vertical clamping force. Claim 9 recites the connector arrangement has connector element with a plug-in section on which there are arranged a parallel clamping device and a vertical clamping device. Plate (52) is defined to be the plug-in section for purposes of claim 9. It contains a vertical clamping device (94, 96) and a parallel clamping device (92, 100). Claim 17 recites that the at least one connector element has longitudinal side faces at a right angle to each other, which extend parallel to a longitudinal extent of the connector element. Figures 3-4 of Gruetzmacher show a top face (92) and a side face (88, 94) that connect at a right angle, both of which extend parallel along the longitudinal extent of the connector. Figure 4 further shows that both are sized to allow them to be inserted into the respective plug-in receptacle of [the] guide rail. Claim 18 recites that he at least one connector element has parallel clamping faces for clamping with the parallel clamping force onto parallel supporting surfaces of the plug-in receptacle. The term parallel clamping faces can either be interpreted as meaning a face that is parallel to a corresponding surface of the receptacle, or may refer to the parallel upper and lower opposing surfaces of the connector element. Either way, figure 4 shows such parallel supporting surfaces on bracket (52). These surfaces are capable of transmitting clamping forces. Claim 18 further recites the parallel clamping faces are [either] arranged vertical to the guide face [or] parallel to the longitudinal guide face. The side surface (94) meets the former while the top surface (92) meets the latter. Claim 19 recites that the vertical clamping force component is vertical to the guide face. The force from the bolt is vertical to the guide face. The remaining limitations are expressed as alternatives and need not be addressed. Claim 20 recites features of the two guide rails. Since the rails are not claimed elements, claim 20 does not functionally further limit the claim with respect to the prior art. Claims 21-26 likewise further limits the guide rails and do not need to be addressed by the prior art. ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER Claims 5-8, 10-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. CONCLUSION Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. 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. 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. /MOSHE WILENSKY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 26, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12575825
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A GRIPPING SURFACE FOR AN END EFFECTOR AND SURGICAL INSTRUMENT COMPRISING A GRIPPING END EFFECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571311
EROSION-SHIELDED TURBINE BLADES AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564884
IMPLANTABLE OBJECTS FABRICATED BY ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING AND METHODS OF FABRICATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12545555
AN EXTENSION YOKE FOR SELF-HOISTING CRANE, A SELF-HOISTING WIND TURBINE CRANE WITH AN EXTENSION YOKE, AND USE OF AN EXTENSION YOKE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12544556
BLOOD PUMP HOUSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
75%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+16.1%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 718 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