Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/427,420

FISHING ROD HOLDER FOR WASH-DOWN OF RODS AND REELS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 30, 2024
Examiner
WOOD, KIMBERLY T
Art Unit
3631
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
604 granted / 1112 resolved
+2.3% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
1164
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
39.8%
-0.2% vs TC avg
§102
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§112
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1112 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 18/427,420. 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 . Allowable Subject Matter The indicated allowability of claims is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Woerner 20030030239. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Woerner 2003/0030239. The applicant is reminded that the fishing rods are not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the fishing rods. Woerner discloses claims 11. A fishing rod holder and wash-down station, comprising: a rectangular frame (rectangular base) having parallel long side members (10), and parallel short side members (11), wherein the parallel long side members each extend from a first one of the parallel short side members to a second one of the parallel short side members, the frame having a top surface that is flat, the frame further having a bottom surface, the top surface being vertically above and opposite the bottom surface, each of the long side members having a width in a direction perpendicular to an elongated direction of the long side members; a plurality of rod holders (50), each one of the plurality of rod holders comprised of a tubular member having a lower end and a bottom, the lower end passing through the frame from the top surface to the bottom surface, wherein the bottom of the rod holder is attached to the frame at the bottom surface and the rod holder is attached to the frame at the top surface of the frame, and wherein each one of plurality of rod holders extends upward from the lower end to a free end that is opposite the lower end without any other portion of the rod holder being attached to the frame and wherein each one of the plurality of rod holders is attached to one of the long side members or one of the parallel short side members centrally in a direction of the width of the one of the parallel long side members or the one of the parallel short side members, and wherein the width of the each one of the parallel long side members and the one of the parallel short side members is greater than a diameter of each rod holder of the plurality of rod holders. (Claim 14) The fishing rod holder and wash-down station of claim 11, further comprising: a plurality of casters (80), each one of the casters being disposed at a respective corner of the frame (paragraph 0041);. 15. The fishing rod holder and wash-down station of claim 11, wherein each one of the plurality of rod holders is open at the lower end (tubular by definition means open at upper and lower end and hollow). [AltContent: textbox (Tubular rod holders 50 connected at the lower end and bottom passing through frame via holes )] [AltContent: textbox (Long side member 10)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Casters 80)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Short side member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Short side member 11)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Long side member)][AltContent: textbox (Rectangular frame )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image1.png 512 664 media_image1.png Greyscale 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. Claim(s) 1-4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woerner 2003/0030239 in view of Grabarski 3,215,401. Woerner discloses claims: 1. A fishing rod holder and wash-down station, comprising: a frame (rectangular base 10 and 11) having a top surface and a bottom surface, the top surface being vertically above and opposite the bottom surface; a plurality of rod holders (50), each one of the plurality of rod holders comprised of a tubular member (meaning by definition open on both top and bottom ends) having a lower end and a bottom, the lower end passing through the frame (10 and 11) from the top surface to the bottom surface, wherein the bottom of the rod holder (bottom of rod holder 50 extends through holes 12 within frame 10 and 11 and attached via pins 70) is attached to the frame at the bottom surface and the rod holder is attached to the frame at the top surface of the frame, and wherein each one of plurality of rod holders extends upward from the lower end to an upper end that is opposite the lower end without any other portion of the rod holder being attached to the frame, and wherein each rod holder of the plurality of rod holder is open at the lower end; a plurality of casters (80) , each one of the casters being disposed at a respective corner of the frame (paragraph 0041); 2. The fishing rod holder and wash-down station of claim 1, wherein the top surface of the frame is flat and is wider than a diameter of each rod holder of the plurality of rod holders (0036 and 0032). 3. The fishing rod holder and wash-down station of claim 2, wherein the frame is comprised of rectangular tube members (0032). 4. The fishing rod holder and wash-down station of claim 1, wherein each one of the plurality of rod holders includes a horizontally oriented stop post (pins form the stop post since pin 70 extends along the lower end of rod via spaced holes 54) at a lower end of the rod holder, and wherein the stop post in each one of the rod holders have a common orientation with each other. 8. The fishing rod holder and wash-down station of claim 1, wherein each one of the plurality of rod holders is each made of a metal tube (made of steel). 9. The fishing rod holder and wash-down station of claim 1, wherein each one of the plurality rod holders includes a stop post (pins form the stop post since pin 70 extends along the lower end of rod via spaced holes 54) that is horizontally oriented and which passes through a center of the rod holder, and wherein the stop post is positioned closer to the lower end of the rod holder than the upper end, and wherein the stop posts in each rod holder are all oriented to be perpendicular to an elongated direction the frame. Woerner discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for a handle mounted to the frame including a vertical shaft that extends upward from the frame, and a hand rest at a top of the vertical shaft having an elongated body that is oriented perpendicular to the vertical shaft. Grabarski teaches it is known to have: (Claim 1) a handle mounted to the frame including a vertical shaft that extends upward from the frame, and a hand rest at a top of the vertical shaft having an elongated body that is oriented perpendicular to the vertical shaft. [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Elongated body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Vertical shaft)] PNG media_image2.png 302 426 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Woerner to have a handle mounted to the frame including a vertical shaft that extends upward from the frame, and a hand rest at a top of the vertical shaft having an elongated body that is oriented perpendicular to the vertical shaft for the purpose of providing a means of moving the cart with ease and minimal effort. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woerner 2003/0030239 in view of Grabarski 3,215,401 in view of Emory, Jr. (Emory) 4,527,349. Woerner in view of Grabarski discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for and wherein each one of the plurality of rod holders includes a cap over a top edge of the rod holder that covers a portion of an inside surface and a portion of an outside surface of the rod holder. Emory teaches it is known to have (Claim 8) and wherein each one of the plurality of rod holders includes a cap (34) over a top edge of the rod holder that covers a portion of an inside surface and a portion of an outside surface of the rod holder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Woerner in view of Grabarski to have included and wherein each one of the plurality of rod holders includes a cap over a top edge of the rod holder that covers a portion of an inside surface and a portion of an outside surface of the rod holder as taught by Emory for the purpose of providing support points or cushions to the rod holders protecting the tubes and the supported items (see paragraph 0012 of Woerner for motivation/suggestion for modification). Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woerner 2003/0030239 in view of Grabarski 3,215,401. Woerner in view of Grabarski discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for wherein the frame and each one of the plurality of rod holders are made of powder coated aluminum. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have (Claim 10) wherein the frame and each one of the plurality of rod holders are made of powder coated aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woerner 2003/0030239 in view of Grabarski 3,215,401. Woerner discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for a handle mounted to the frame including a vertical shaft that extends upward from the frame, and a hand rest at a top of the vertical shaft having an elongated body that is oriented perpendicular to the vertical shaft. Grabarski teaches it is known to have: (Claim 14) a handle mounted to the frame including a vertical shaft that extends upward from the frame, and a hand rest at a top of the vertical shaft having an elongated body that is oriented perpendicular to the vertical shaft. [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Vertical shaft)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Elongated body)] PNG media_image2.png 302 426 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Woerner to have a handle mounted to the frame including a vertical shaft that extends upward from the frame, and a hand rest at a top of the vertical shaft having an elongated body that is oriented perpendicular to the vertical shaft as taught by Grabarski for the purpose of providing a means of moving the cart with ease and minimal effort. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art Woerner does not disclose Claim 12. The fishing rod holder and wash-down station of claim 11, further comprising: a cross member connected to each of the long side members of the frame at a point centrally between the first one and the second one of the parallel short side members; a handle mounted on the cross member including a vertical shaft that extends upward from the cross member, and a hand rest at a top of the vertical shaft having an elongated body that is oriented to be parallel to the long side members; and a plurality of casters, each one of the casters being disposed at a respective corner of the frame. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule. 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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. /KIMBERLY T WOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 10, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 15, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 14, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 07, 2025
Interview Requested
Mar 04, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 05, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 30, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 03, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
May 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jul 01, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 14, 2026
Interview Requested
Jan 22, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 22, 2026
Response Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598718
ANALOG CONVERTER BOX MOUNTING STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592663
Support Member for a Solar Panel Rack
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582233
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR THE UNDERSTRUCTURE OF A CHAIR BASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578052
COMPRESSOR ANTICOLLISION STRUCTURE AND ELECTRICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575653
CASE INCLUDING STRUCTURE FOR SUPPORTING ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
54%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+27.4%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1112 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