Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/423,032

Hybrid Cable Tie

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 25, 2024
Examiner
LEE, MICHAEL S
Art Unit
3677
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hellermanntyton S A S
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
530 granted / 831 resolved
+11.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
889
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
37.5%
-2.5% vs TC avg
§102
40.0%
+0.0% vs TC avg
§112
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 831 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This communication is an office action on the merits. Claims 1-2 and 4-21, as filed are currently pending and have been considered below. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 August 2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9 and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabayashi (US 4,038,726) in view of Breen, IV et al. (US 2012/0084948). Regarding claim 1, Takabayashi discloses an apparatus having: a head (C) having a cover (1) and a base (8), the cover being movable between an open position (Fig. 1) and a closed position (Fig. 2), a lacing band having a strap (20) and an attachment portion (21) connecting the strap to the head, wherein: the head is arranged to receive, between the base and the cover, a portion of the strap (Fig. 2 and 4 as shown), and one of the base and the cover has a first protrusion (41) and the other of the base and the cover has a counter-shape (groove formed between protrusions 10) arranged in regard to the first protrusion when the cover is in the closed position so as to pinch the strap (Fig. 2 as shown), the first protrusion includes at least an additional top protrusion so as to provide an additional grip on the strap (Fig. 4 shows multiple protrusions 41), the base further comprises at least one projection (12), and the cover further comprises at least one recess (4) arranged to fit with the at least one projection when the head is closed. Takabayashi fails to disclose the strap is made of textile, the textile comprises at least one of a braided or a woven textile. Breen, IV et al. teaches a device with a braided strap (14; Paragraph 66, lines 1-4). From this teaching of Breen, IV, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use braided materials in place of the solid/homogenous material used for their advantages in strength and flexibility over homogenous materials. Regarding claim 2, Takabayashi further discloses wherein the counter-shape has at least one of: a facing portion (between protrusions 10) in regard to the first protrusion when the cover is in the closed position, and a second protrusion (10) beside the facing portion so as to form a chicane (Figs. 2 and 4 as shown); or a recess in regard to the first protrusion when the cover is in the closed position (Fig. 4 as shown). Regarding claim 4, Takabayashi further discloses wherein the counter-shape has a recess (between protrusions 10 as shown in Figs. 1, 2 and 4) in regard to the first protrusion when the cover is in the closed position, wherein the counter-shape has a facing portion (surface between protrusions 10) in regard to the first protrusion when the cover is in the closed position and a second protrusion (10) beside the facing portion so as to form a chicane, and wherein the counter-shape has the second protrusion and a third protrusion (10) so as to form the recess therebetween. Regarding claim 5, Takabayashi further discloses wherein the lacing band extends longitudinally, the head defines a longitudinal portion arranged to receive the portion of the strap, and the first protrusion and the second protrusion extend in a width direction of the longitudinal portion (Fig. 2 as shown). Regarding claim 6, Takabayashi further discloses at least one fixation system (4, 12) arranged to lock the cover onto the base in the closed position. Regarding claim 7, Takabayashi further discloses wherein the fixation system has a snap-fit fixation (12) and a locking device (4) and: one of the base and the cover has the snap-fit fixation, and the other of the base and the cover has the locking device arranged to receive the snap-fit fixation (Fig. 1 as shown). Regarding claim 8, Takabayashi further discloses wherein the cover is hingeably connected (via 9) to the base. Regarding claim 9, Takabayashi further discloses wherein the head further has a film hinge arranged between the base and the cover (Fig. 1 shows wherein hinge 9 is thin film). Regarding claim 17, Takabayashi further discloses wherein the counter-shape has a facing portion (between protrusions 10) in regard to the first protrusion when the cover is in the closed position and a second protrusion (10) beside the facing portion so as to form a chicane (Figs. 2 and 4), and wherein the facing portion is flat (Fig. 4 as shown). Regarding claim 18, Takabayashi discloses an apparatus having: a head (C) having a cover (1) and a base (8), the cover being movable between an open position (Fig. 1) and a closed position (Fig. 2), a lacing band having a strap (20) and an attachment portion (21) connecting the strap to the head, wherein the head is arranged to receive, between the base and the cover, a portion of the strap (Fig. 2 and 4 as shown), and wherein one of the base and the cover has a first protrusion (41) and the other of the base and the cover has a counter-shape (groove formed between protrusions 10) arranged in regard to the first protrusion when the cover is in the closed position so as to pinch the strap (Fig. 2 as shown), the first protrusion includes at least an additional top protrusion so as to provide an additional grip on the strap (Fig. 4 shows multiple protrusions 41), wherein the counter-shape further comprises a second protrusion spaced apart from a third protrusion to define a recess, the recess configured to receive the first protrusion (Fig. 4 as shown), wherein the recess is U-shaped and comprises a first leg, a base, and a second leg (Fig. 4 as shown), wherein when the cover is in the closed position, the additional top protrusion of the first protrusion is spaced apart from the base of the recess of the counter-shape by a first distance (Fig. 4 as shown), and wherein the first distance is sized to receive the strap (Fig. 4 as shown). Takabayashi fails to disclose the strap is made of textile, the textile comprises at least one of a braided or a woven textile. Breen, IV et al. teaches a device with a braided strap (14; Paragraph 66, lines 1-4). From this teaching of Breen, IV, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use braided materials in place of the solid/homogenous material used for their advantages in strength and flexibility over homogenous materials. Regarding claim 19, Takabayashi further discloses wherein the first protrusion defines a pair of opposing sidewalls, and wherein a first sidewall of the opposing sidewalls is spaced apart a second distance from the first protrusion (Fig. 4 as shown). Regarding claim 20, Takabayashi discloses an apparatus having: a head (C) having a cover (1) and a base (8), the cover being movable between an open position (Fig. 1) and a closed position (Fig. 2), a lacing band having a strap (20) and an attachment portion (21) connecting the strap to the head, wherein the head is arranged to receive, between the base and the cover, a portion of the strap (Fig. 2 and 4 as shown), and wherein one of the base and the cover has a first protrusion (41) and the other of the base and the cover has a counter-shape (groove formed between protrusions 10) arranged in regard to the first protrusion when the cover is in the closed position so as to pinch the strap (Fig. 2 as shown), the first protrusion includes at least an additional top protrusion so as to provide an additional grip on the strap (Fig. 4 shows multiple protrusions 41), wherein the counter-shape further comprises a second protrusion spaced apart from a third protrusion to define a recess, the recess configured to receive the first protrusion (Fig. 4 as shown), wherein the recess is U-shaped and comprises a first leg, a base, and a second leg (Fig. 4 as shown), wherein when the cover is in the closed position, the additional top protrusion of the first protrusion is spaced apart from the base of the recess of the counter-shape by a first distance (Fig. 4 as shown), wherein the first distance is sized to receive the strap (Fig. 4 as shown), wherein the first protrusion defines a pair of opposing sidewalls (Fig. 4 as shown), and wherein a first sidewall of the opposing sidewalls is spaced apart a second distance from the first protrusion (Fig. 4 as shown). Takabayashi fails to disclose the strap is made of textile, the textile comprises at least one of a braided or a woven textile. Breen, IV et al. teaches a device with a braided strap (14; Paragraph 66, lines 1-4). From this teaching of Breen, IV, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use braided materials in place of the solid/homogenous material used for their advantages in strength and flexibility over homogenous materials. The combination of Takabayashi and Breen, IV et al. fails to expressly disclose wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure the space between the protrusions and the recess is smaller than the space between the sidewalls (wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance) because Applicant has not disclosed that the relative spacing provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with its current spacing because spacing as shown would sufficiently grip a strap while still allowing the strap to fit within the head. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the combination of Takayashi and Breen, IV et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claim. Regarding claim 21, Takabayashi further discloses wherein the counter-shape further comprises a second protrusion spaced apart from a third protrusion to define a recess (Fig. 4 as shown), wherein the projection is perpendicular to at least one of the second protrusion or the third protrusion (Fig. 1 as shown), and wherein the recess is perpendicular to the first protrusion (Fig. 4 as shown). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Takabayashi and Breen, IV et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Higgins (US 5,669,253). Regarding claim 10, the combination of Takabayashi and Breen, IV et al. discloses the invention except for wherein the attachment portion is at least one of overmolded onto the base, glued with the base, or welded with the base. Higgins teaches a base (38) with an integral attachment of an end (14) of a strap (12) that appears to be the same as or at least equivalent with one of overmolded, glued or welded with the base (Col, 3, line 61-Col.4 line 2). From this teaching of Higgins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to secure the strap in by overmolding the attachment portion onto the base to prevent accidental removal of the strap. Claims 11, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Takabayashi and Breen, IV et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saitoh et al. (US 2007/0251062). Regarding claims 11, 15 and 16, the combination of Takabayashi and Breen, IV et al. discloses the invention except for wherein the head has a first colour and the lacing band has a second colour, so as to define a colour code and wherein the head and the strap are made of different materials, wherein the head is made of plastic. Saitoh et al. teach a head (22) with a plastic material (Paragraph 27, line 3) and a band (46) of a resinous or metallic material (Paragraph 27, last 7 lines). From this teaching of Saitoh et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use plastic for the head and metal for the band part for their respective mechanical properties necessary for operation. Each would in turn have first and second colors inherent with their respective materials establishing a color code as claimed. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Takabayashi and Breen, IV et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daly (WO 2015/008061). Regarding claims 12 and 13, the combination of Takabayashi and Breen, IV et al. discloses the invention except for a RFID chip on the head. Daly teaches a device with an embedded RFID on the head (Page 12, lines 28-30). From this teaching of Daly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to embed an RFID chip in the head for tracking purposes. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 24 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The new language to claim 1 has been addressed above. Regarding Applicant’s remarks to the application of Breen to teach the strap is textile, braided or stranded materials are known for their flexibility, maintained strength with reduced weight, and their ability to fail in a less than catastrophic manner. Applicant alleges the Examiner is applying impermissible hindsight reasoning. Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. However, Examiner is only taking into account knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. The reasoning is still considered proper. Applicant has further argued the rejections regarding the first and second distances as included in claim 20. Applicant has referenced the labels provided in the disclosure as to providing the advantage of each distance. However, their relative relationship is not suggested by their names and Applicant has failed to provide sufficient support within the disclosure to indicate an advantage, particular purpose, or solving a stated problem. Each distance is only suggested singularly and not relative to one another. Finally, Applicant has suggested that the applied prior art can not be considered analogous prior art. Applicant references vague language within Takabayashi regarding the usage of a non-metallic material in relationship to its comfort. Applicant has alleged that this language suggests that Takabayashi is non-analogous as this language suggests its usage as a clothing article. This is not persuasive as the Applicant is presuming a conclusion that is not explicitly present. The presumption that Takabayashi is only for clothing is not conclusively supported. However, clothing belts and structures for binding either singular items or plural items together in a bundled manner are still considered analogous. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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 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. /M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677 /JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 25, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 07, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 07, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 27, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 27, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593897
STRAP BUCKLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12564249
COMPOSITE FASTENER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12553457
Fastener
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12527373
FASTENER HAVING A POCKET FOR AN EXTENDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12507769
TIMEPIECE COMPONENT PROVIDED WITH A CAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
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
64%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+20.4%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 831 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