Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/399,104

Display Rack Device

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 28, 2023
Examiner
MARSH, STEVEN M
Art Unit
3632
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
1238 granted / 1560 resolved
+27.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1595
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§102
36.0%
-4.0% vs TC avg
§112
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1560 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This is the third office action for US Application 18/399,104 for a Display Rack Device. The indicated allowability of claim 1 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Hinkens. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. PNG media_image1.png 662 490 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US D544,164 to Hinkens Regarding claim 1, Hinkens discloses a display rack assembly (see annotated picture above of figure 1 of Hinkens) comprising a beam (1) having a first end and a second end. There are a plurality of beam hooks (2) coupled to the beam, the hooks aligned with each other along the beam between the first end and the second end, and each of the plurality of beam hooks configured to facilitate hanging a pair of goggles from the beam. There is a support element (3-5) coupled to the beam, the support element raising the beam and configured to position the beam above a ground surface. The beam is configured to retain a pair of goggles above the ground surface (see figure 1). The support element includes a rod (3) having a top end and a bottom end, the rod being perpendicular to the beam and extending downwardly from the beam. The support element includes a first leg (4) coupled to and extending outwardly from the bottom end, and a pair of rails (6, 7) coupled to the rod. Hinkens does not disclose the beam and the support element as formed of a polyvinyl chloride tubing material. However, the material used to form the beam and support element are a matter of design preference that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would know to utilize a known material like polyvinyl chloride tubing dependent on cost and strength considerations. Regarding claim 3, Hinkens discloses a second leg (5) coupled to and extending outwardly from the bottom end, the second leg being aligned with the first leg (4) over a transverse plane. Regarding claim 4, each of the first leg (4) and the second leg (5) of is perpendicular to the rod. Regarding claim 5, the first leg (4) is perpendicular to the second leg (5). Regarding claim 6, there is a sleeve (9) coupling the beam to the support element, the sleeve extending from the rod and having a rod end (the portion of the sleeve connected to the rod 3) and a beam end (the portion of the beam connected to the beam 1), the rod end being coupled to the rod and the beam end being coupled to the beam. Hinkens does not disclose the sleeve as extending upwardly from the top end of the rod. However, shifting the position of the beam to the top end of the beam does not modify the operation of the device and is therefore an obvious matter of design choice. Regarding claim 7, the sleeve is convexly arcuate between the rod end and the beam end where the beam is offset from the rod when the beam is coupled to the beam of the end sleeve. Regarding claim 9, the pair of rails (6, 7) extends outwardly from opposing lateral sides of the rod. Regarding claim 10, the pair of rails (6, 7) is perpendicular to the rod. Regarding claim 11, the pair of rails (6, 7) is parallel to the beam (1). Regarding claim 12, the pair of rails (6, 7) is offset from the beam (1… the rails are vertically offset from the beam). Regarding claim 13, there are a plurality of rail hooks (8) coupled to each of the pair of rails (6, 7). The plurality of rail hooks are aligned with each other along each of the pair of rails, and each of the plurality of rail hooks hangs downwardly from a respective one of the pair of rails. The plurality of rail hooks is configured to facilitate hanging a pair of goggles from the respective one of the pair of rails. Regarding claim 14, there is a hub (10) coupled to the rod, the hub coupling the pair of rails (6, 7) to the rod (3). Regarding claim 20, Hinkens discloses a display rack assembly (see annotated picture above of figure 1 of Hinkens) comprising a beam (1) having a first end and a second end. There are a plurality of beam hooks (2) coupled to the beam, the hooks aligned with each other along the beam between the first end and the second end, and each of the plurality of beam hooks hanging downwardly from the beam and configured to facilitate hanging a pair of goggles from the beam. There is a support element (3-5) coupled to the beam, the support element raising the beam and configured to position the beam above a ground surface. The beam is configured to retain a pair of goggles above the ground surface (see figure 1). The support element includes a rod (3) having a top end and a bottom end, the rod being perpendicular to the beam and extending downwardly from the beam. The support element includes a first leg (4) coupled to and extending outwardly from the bottom end, the first leg being perpendicular to the rod. There is a second leg (5) coupled to and extending outwardly from the bottom end, the second leg being perpendicular to the rod and the first leg, and the second leg being aligned with the first leg over a transverse plane. There is a sleeve (9) coupling the beam to the support element, the sleeve extending from the rod and having a rod end (the portion of the sleeve connected to the rod 3) and a beam end (the portion of the beam connected to the beam 1), the rod end being coupled to the rod and the beam end being coupled to the beam. Hinkens does not disclose the sleeve as extending upwardly from the top end of the rod. However, shifting the position of the beam to the top end of the beam does not modify the operation of the device and is therefore an obvious matter of design choice. The sleeve is convexly arcuate between the rod end and the beam end where the beam is offset from the rod when the beam is coupled to the beam of the end sleeve. The pair of rails (6, 7) extends outwardly from opposing lateral sides of the rod, is perpendicular to the rod, are aligned with the rod over a longitudinal plane, and is parallel to and offset from the beam. There are a plurality of rail hooks (8) coupled to each of the pair of rails (6, 7). The plurality of rail hooks are aligned with each other along each of the pair of rails, and each of the plurality of rail hooks hangs downwardly from a respective one of the pair of rails. The plurality of rail hooks is configured to facilitate hanging a pair of goggles from the respective one of the pair of rails. There is a hub (10) coupled to the rod, the hub coupling the pair of rails (6, 7) to the rod (3). Hinkens does not disclose the beam and the support element as formed of a polyvinyl chloride tubing material. However, the material used to form the beam and support element are a matter of design preference that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would know to utilize a known material like polyvinyl chloride tubing dependent on cost and strength considerations. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M MARSH whose telephone number is (571)272-6819. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9 am-7:30 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. 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. STEVEN M. MARSH Primary Examiner Art Unit 3632 /STEVEN M MARSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 28, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 30, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601425
DEVICE FOR ATTACHING AN ELEMENT TO A PART OF A MOTOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598957
SUBSTRATE TRANSFER APPARATUS AND SUBSTRATE TRANSFER METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590602
TRIM ATTACHMENT ASSEMBLY FOR MOUNTING SOLAR PANEL EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588789
System, Apparatus and Method for Toiletry Convenience
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582253
Self-Righting Hydration Cup Holder
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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+7.4%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1560 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month