Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/428,059

RAIL SUPPORTING APPARATUS FOR SUPPORTING TUBULAR RAIL MEMBER FOR BOARDING SPORTS ON A BASE FRAME

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 31, 2024
Examiner
EPPS, TODD MICHAEL
Art Unit
3632
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
704 granted / 967 resolved
+20.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1005
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
§102
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§112
31.4%
-8.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 967 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 . This is a non-final Office Action for serial number 18/428,059, Rail Supporting Apparatus For Supporting Tubular Rail Member For Boarding Sports On A Base Frame, filed on January 31, 2024. Claim Objections Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5, “the range” should be changed to -- a range --. Appropriate correction is required. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 15-17 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the ground" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 recites the limitation "the ground" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 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, 15, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,364,312 to Cunard et al. (Cunard). Regarding claim 1, Cunard ‘312 discloses a rail supporting apparatus (Figs. 1A, 3) for mounting a tubular rail member onto a base frame, the apparatus comprising: a mounting plate (72, 74) including first fasteners apertures (76) formed therein so as to be arranged to fasten the mounting plate to an upright supporting surface of the base frame (22, 24); and at least one mounting flange (66) extending transversely from the mounting plate and including a second fastener aperture (82, 84) therein so as to be arranged to fasten the mounting flange to a bottom surface of the tubular rail member (10a); wherein at least one mounting flange is formed integrally with the mounting plate as a unitary body (one piece – Fig. 2). Regarding claim 15, Cunard ‘312 discloses a rail supporting apparatus of claim 1 above comprising: a tubular rail member (10a); at least one base member (22, 24) supporting a respective portion of the tubular rail member spaced above the ground and the rail supporting apparatus coupling the tubular rail member to the at least one base member. Regarding claim 16, Cunard ‘312 discloses wherein the at least one mounting flange is secured to the tubular rail member by a bolt (78 - see Fig. 5). Regarding claim 17, Cunard ‘312 discloses wherein the at least one base member (22, 24) is constructed of dimensional lumber and the mounting plate (72, 74) is bolted with fasteners (94) to the dimensional lumber of the base member. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 9,675,829 to Katz. Katz ‘829 discloses a rail supporting apparatus (10) for mounting a tubular rail member (18) onto a base frame (16), the apparatus comprising: a mounting plate (14 – bottom portion) including first fasteners apertures (14A, 14B) formed therein so as to be arranged to fasten the mounting plate to an upright supporting surface of the base frame (16F, 16S); and at least one mounting flange (14 – top portion) extending transversely from the mounting plate and including a second fastener aperture (14C) therein so as to be arranged to fasten the mounting flange to a bottom surface of the tubular rail member (Fig. 2A – where 14C is mounted ); wherein at least one mounting flange is formed integrally with the mounting plate as a unitary body (one piece – Fig. 2A). Regarding claim 2, Katz ‘829 discloses wherein the at least one mounting flange comprises two mounting flanges (see Figs. 2A and 2B, 14 – top portion). Regarding claim 3, Katz ‘829 discloses wherein the two mounting flanges are spaced apart from one another (see Figs 2A and 2B). 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. Claim(s) 10-11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz ‘829. Katz ‘829 discloses wherein the mounting plate includes two opposing (14-bottom) extending downwardly from an upper edge of the mounting plate locating the two mounting flanges, the side edges diverging away from one another with some degrees of an interior angle between the side edges (Fig. 2A), however, fails to disclose exactly wherein the interior angle is within a range of 50 to 100 degrees or 65-85 degrees. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interior angle to be within 65 to 85 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovery basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Concerning method claim 18-20, in view of the structure discloses by Katz ‘829, the method for use in boarding sports, would have been obvious, since it is the normal and logical manner in which the device would be used. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would be necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-5, 6-9, 12-14 are 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. Regarding claims 4-5, the prior art fails to disclose wherein the two mounting flanges are supported at a top end of the mounting plate, and wherein the upper mounting surfaces are sloped downwardly and inwardly towards one another such that an interior angle between the upper mounting surfaces is within a range of 100 to 160 degrees or 120 to 150 degrees. Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to disclose wherein each mooting flange is oriented at an angle within a range of 80-100 degrees. Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to disclose wherein each mounting flange is perpendicularly to the mounting plate. Regarding claim 8, the prior art fails to disclose wherein each mounting flange is joined to the mounting plate along a fold line and protrudes outwardly from the mounting plate to an outer free edge that lies parallel to the fold line of the mounting flange. Regarding claim 9 the prior art fails to disclose wherein the mouthing plate include a slot formed in an upper edge of the mounting plate. Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to disclose wherein two of the first fastener apertures associated with each side edge. Regarding claim 13, the prior art fails to disclose each lob locating two of the first fastener apertures. Regarding claim 14, the prior art fails to disclose wherein the upper portions extending upwardly from the lower portions respectively to diverge away from one another. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 4,966,309 – L-shaped bracket U.S. Patent No. 8,079,915 – Swing Stand with brackets Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD M. EPPS whose telephone number is (571) 272-8282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am - 5pm. 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 at 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. /TODD M EPPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 November 6, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 31, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583545
A Rear Mirror Assembly With Anti-Rotation Protection
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584587
BRACKET, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HANGING ARTICLES UNDER A STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573828
WIRE STUB OUT CLIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564376
POSITIONING ARM APPARATUS FOR ULTRASOUND HEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560277
DISPLAY MOUNTING SUPPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+7.4%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 967 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