Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/462,620

TIE DOWN DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Sep 07, 2023
Examiner
FULLER, ROBERT EDWARD
Art Unit
3676
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hid Projects Pty Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
654 granted / 830 resolved
+26.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
870
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
37.2%
-2.8% vs TC avg
§102
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§112
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 830 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Species I in the reply filed on January 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 9-18 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Note: Examiner acknowledges and apologizes for the error pointed out by applicant in the second paragraph of the Remarks filed January 27. The Restriction Requirement incorrectly stated that claim 8 corresponded to Species II and III. Applicant is correct that claim 8 actually corresponds to Species I. Drawings The drawings are objected to because: The drawings have degraded line quality, and thus do not meet the standards of 37 CFR 1.84(L). See sample below. The drawings likely contain grayscale elements, which cause image degradation in the USPTO electronic filing system. Drawings must be entirely bi-tonal, containing only black or white color values. PNG media_image1.png 274 384 media_image1.png Greyscale Views in the drawings must be “clearly separated from one another” (37 CFR 1.84(h), and should not be “connected by projection lines” (37 CFR 1.84(j). Numeral “10a” in Figs. 1, 2, 7, and 8, numeral “10b” in Figs. 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20, numeral 16a in figs. 23 and 24, numeral 28 in Figs. 23 and 24, and numeral 10c in Figs. 24-27 improperly connect these views, which are required to remain clearly separate. Additionally, numerals in certain adjacent figures (e.g. Figs. 14 and 15) overlap excessively such that the figures are no longer “clearly separated.” The reference numerals in Figs. 21 and 22 are too small. See 37 CFR 1.84 (p)(3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0079, line 4, the word “and” should be deleted. Paragraph 0094, line 7, the phrase “this is to be contracts to” is incorrect. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is believed that the comma should be deleted from line 3 for grammatical purposes. 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 2 and 3 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 2 recites that “the internal slot and the cam surface are symmetrically formed about a longitudinal axis of the body,” and claim 3 recites that “the internal slot and the gripping mechanism are formed symmetrically about the longitudinal axis of the body.” Because applicant’s invention is a 3-dimensional object, the phrase “formed symmetrically about the longitudinal axis” would normally imply a rotational symmetry around the longitudinal axis, as if the device was formed on a lathe, with a rotational axis corresponding to the longitudinal axis of the device. However, applicant’s Fig. 2 shows that this is clearly not the case. Thus, applicant’s device only has a specific kind of planar symmetry. When the body is “cut” by a particular plane that contains the longitudinal axis and is also parallel to the lateral width of the body, then the internal slot 20, cam surface 26, and gripping mechanism 50 will be symmetrical (in a 2-dimensional sense) to the longitudinal axis 14. This is illustrated in the annotated Fig. below. Thus, claims 2 and 3 are deemed to be confusing because the phrase “formed symmetrically about a longitudinal axis of the body” implies rotational symmetry or manufacturing on a lathe, which contradicts the disclosure and the basic physical structure of the tool. PNG media_image2.png 518 466 media_image2.png Greyscale Claims 2 and 3 are being examined as if they require a 2-dimensional symmetry in a particular plane that contains the longitudinal axis of the body. 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. Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greer, Jr. et al. (US 7,406,751, hereinafter Greer). With regard to claim 1, Greer teaches a tie down device comprising; a body (12—see also annotated Fig. below) having a longitudinal axis (42), a hitching part (22, 38) and a locking part (26); the hitching part including an internal slot (38) formed in the body and a hitch member (i.e. the ring defined around opening 38) about which a portion of a tether inserted through the internal slot can be engaged to couple the tether to the body (see tether 14 engaged with opening 38 in Fig. 2); and the locking part (26) having a cam surface (24) over which the tether can slide when pulled (“the line is allowed to move in either direction over the support surface 24” and “when the line 14 slides in a second direction over the support surface 24, the tension on the line 14 is decreased,” see column 2, line 59 – column 3, line 3) and a gripping mechanism (60) arranged to grip a portion of the tether downline of the cam surface (see Fig. 3); wherein the cam surface (24) and the gripping mechanism (60) are located along the longitudinal axis (42) of the body (see Fig. 5). PNG media_image3.png 314 569 media_image3.png Greyscale With regard to claim 2, as best understood, Greer teaches that the internal slot (38) and the cam surface (24) are symmetrically formed about a longitudinal axis (42) of the body (see Fig. 5 above). With regard to claim 3, as best understood, Greer teaches that the internal slot (38) and the gripping mechanism (60) are formed symmetrically about the longitudinal axis (42) of the body (see Fig. 5 above). With regard to claim 4, the hitch member extends in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the body (the hitch member, i.e. the ring defined around internal slot 38, extends laterally with respect to the longitudinal axis 42). With regard to claim 5, the gripping mechanism (60) comprises a clam cleat (the V-shaped notch 26 is a clam cleat). With regard to claim 6, the clam cleat comprises a valley (proximate numeral 26, see Fig. below) extending coaxially with the longitudinal axis (42). PNG media_image4.png 304 330 media_image4.png Greyscale With regard to claim 7, Greer discloses a channel formed in the body and configured to receive a tether, the channel being opened at one and extending to the cam surface (the channel is shown in Fig. 5, and is bound by surface 24 and the projecting surface 70 at its closed end, and is open at the other end). With regard to claim 8, Greer teaches that the body (12) is a one-piece structure (see Fig. 5). Claim(s) 1, 4-8, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lopes Praca (US 2006/0054070, hereinafter Lopes). With regard to claim 1, Lopes discloses a tie down device comprising; a body (100, see especially Figs. 1-4, see also annotated Fig. below) having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 4 represents a view along the longitudinal axis), a hitching part (115) and a locking part (110); the hitching part (115) including an internal slot (170) formed in the body and a hitch member (160) about which a portion of a tether inserted through the internal slot can be engaged to couple the tether to the body (see second annotated Fig. below); and the locking part (110) having a cam surface (145) over which the tether can slide when pulled and a gripping mechanism (155) arranged to grip a portion of the tether downline of the cam surface (the gripping mechanism 155 is “downline” of the cam surface 145 in the wrap direction 520 as seen in Fig. 5—compare to Fig. 1); wherein the cam surface and the gripping mechanism are located along the longitudinal axis of the body (the view of Fig. 4, looking along the longitudinal axis, shows both the gripping mechanism 155 and the groove 145, indicating that they are generally located “along” the longitudinal axis). PNG media_image5.png 724 635 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 472 468 media_image6.png Greyscale With regard to claim 4, Lopes teaches that the hitch member (115) extends in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the body (see Fig. 1, which shows the hitch member 115 extending perpendicular, i.e. vertically, from the longitudinal axis of the body). With regard to claim 5, Lopes discloses that the gripping mechanism comprises a clam cleat (155). With regard to claim 6, Lopes teaches that the clam cleat comprises a valley (150) extending coaxially with the longitudinal axis (see annotated version of Fig. 4 above). With regard to claim 7, Lopes teaches a channel formed in the body and configured to receive a tether, the channel being opened at one and extending to the cam surface (see annotated version of Fig. 3 above). With regard to claim 8, Lopes teaches that the body (100) is a one-piece structure (see Fig. 1). With regard to claim 19, Lopes discloses a tie down device comprising; a body (100) having a hitching part (115) and a locking part (110); the hitching part including a neck portion (165) formed with an internal slot (170) and a hitch member (160) that extends laterally beyond opposite sides of the neck portion whereby the hitching part has a T like shape (see annotated version of Fig. 1 above), and wherein a portion of a tether inserted through the internal slot can be looped behind the hitch member to couple the tether to the hitch member (see annotated version of Fig. 5, which shows the tether 500 inserted into the slot 170 and looped behind the hitch member 160); the locking part being in a form of a clam cleat (110) configured to grip a portion of the tether to prevent a release of tension in a portion of the tether up-line of the hitching part (Paragraph 0021, “the teeth 155 are oriented within the narrow portion 150 such that a line (not shown) disposed in the narrow portion 150 and pulled in a first direction will be gripped by the teeth 155”), while allowing sliding motion of the portion of the tether in the clam cleat in a direction to increase tension in a portion of the tether up-line of the hitching part (“the teeth 155 readily release the line when the line is pulled in a second direction opposite to the first direction”). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references provide further examples of tie-down tensioning devices, or simply devices that have structural similarities to applicant’s disclosed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM. 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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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. /ROBERT E FULLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 07, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589696
APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR VEHICLE CENTER CONSOLE LID STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590496
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR SUPPORTING A COLLAR REGION OF A BLAST HOLE DURING DRILLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584377
DELAYED OPENING PORT ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584388
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OPTIMIZATION OF WELLBORE OPERATIONS OF PRODUCING WELLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577857
SINGLE TRIP COMPLETION SYSTEM WITH OPEN HOLE GRAVEL PACK GO/STOP PUMPING
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+2.6%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 830 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