Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/382,028

ANCHORING PLATE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Oct 19, 2023
Examiner
HIJAZ, OMAR F
Art Unit
3635
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Spinnanker GmbH
OA Round
2 (Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
422 granted / 759 resolved
+3.6% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+34.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
60 currently pending
Career history
819
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
§112
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 759 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION The Amendment filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-15 have been cancelled. Therefore, claims 16-32 are now pending in the application. Response to Amendment The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments. The previous 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (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. Claim(s) 16-32, 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. Regarding claim 16, at line 4, the recitation “its longitudinal extension” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired, in particular regarding the term “its”. For the purpose of this office action, it is best understood that the claim recitation is understood to mean –a longitudinal extension of the base plate--. Regarding claim 20, at lines 1-2, the recitation “comprises sockets whose center lines form angles” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired, in particular regarding the term “whose”. For the purpose of this office action, it is best understood that the claim recitation is understood to mean –comprises the threaded sockets that have center lines forming angles--. Regarding claim 22, at lines 1-2, the recitation “their angular orientation” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired, in particular regarding the term “their”. For the purpose of this office action, it is best understood that the claim depends from claim 19, which has the antecedent basis for “angular orientations” and recitation “their angular orientation” is understood to recite --the respective angular orientation--. Regarding claim 31, at lines 1-2, the preamble and in particular the recitation “Use of the anchor plate according to claim 16 for” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired, in particular regarding the term “Use of…for”. For the purpose of this office action, it is best understood that the preamble recitation is understood to recite --A method of anchoring an anchor plate according to claim 16, comprising using the anchor plate for--. Regarding claim 32, at lines 1-2, the preamble and in particular the recitation “Use of the anchor plate according to claim 16 for” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired, in particular regarding the term “Use of…for”. For the purpose of this office action, it is best understood that the preamble recitation is understood to recite --A method of anchoring an anchor plate according to claim 16, comprising using the anchor plate for--. Allowable Subject Matter Claim(s) 16 is rejected, but 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. In particular, the aggregate features of the claim results in an anchor plate structure that is not disclosed or suggested by the cited prior art. Furthermore, any modification to the prior art to achieve such an arrangement would require hindsight reasoning and an impermissible reconstruction of disparate teachings. Claim(s) 17-32 depend from claim 16 and are therefore rejected as well. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the allowable subject matter. Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered and were found persuasive, as best understood, in view of the indicated allowable subject matter as related to the clarifications under the 112 second paragraph matters detailed above. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 19, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 19, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601183
THERMAL INSULATION PAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595663
PREFABRICATED FRAMES FOR MASONRY SLIPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597881
Fixed-tilt solar arrays and related systems
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577789
Tile Panel, Surface Covering of a Multitude of Such Tile Panels for a Floor, Ceiling or Wall Surface
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565781
FORMWORK WALL PANEL AND FORMWORK ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+34.8%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 759 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