Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/467,708

LATERAL LOCATING DEVICE

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Sep 14, 2023
Examiner
HOTCHKISS, MICHAEL WAYNE
Art Unit
3726
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
6 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
249 granted / 362 resolved
-1.2% vs TC avg
Strong +52% interview lift
Without
With
+52.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
405
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
§112
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 362 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 . Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment to Claim 1 is supported by at least Figure 37. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 2 and 4-6 are no longer rejected under 35 USC 112(d) as Claim 2 has been cancelled. 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. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Costanzo (US20050023105A1). Claim 1 Costanzo teaches a lateral locating device, comprising: a body (Figure 3) having an assembly portion protruding from a first surface of the body in a first direction (Figure 3 shows the body of the module has elements (shown in Figure 2A as Item 62) that extend from a side surface in a first direction.), wherein only the assembly portion of the body is assembled in a first object (Figure 1 shows an overview of the assembly of the modules where connecting elements (30), which are analogous assembly portions, are connected to recesses in other modules (first objects).), the body has a placement portion at a second surface (Figure 3 shows a round cavity (70) on a second surface (72) where a roller (68) is located.), and the first surface and the second surface are adjacent to each other at an angle (The first and second surfaces in Costanzo’s module are adjacent to one another at a 90 degree angle.), and a fastening portion or a leaning portion (68), for engagingly fastening to, interfering with or bearing a second object or another object in a second direction (The roller (68) is used to convey an object along the conveyor system. See ¶0002, “pallets or boxes”.), wherein the first direction is transverse and the second direction is longitudinal (The two directions are transverse to one another.), wherein the fastening portion or the leaning portion is placed and limited within the placement portion (Figure 3), the fastening portion or the leaning portion within the placement portion is entirely outside the first object (Figure 1 shows the rollers (44) are outside of the adjacent modules.), and a partial of the fastening portion or the leaning portion maintains protruding from the placement portion (¶0018 “a salient portion of the ball extending above the top surface of the module”.), and wherein the second object or another object is supported on the fastening portion or the leaning portion in the second direction by rolling contact, and a movement of the second object or another object is supported by rolling of the fastening portion or leaning portion. (Costanzo teaches a conveyor mat that is intended to move objects along the top surface by rolling contact between the rollers and said objects.) Claim 4 Costanzo teaches the lateral locating device according to claim 2, wherein the body has a stopping portion for stopping the fastening portion or the leaning portion from departing from the body. (Figure 3 teaches a rim around the cavity (70) that confines the ball (68) in the cavity. See also ¶0018.) 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. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costanzo (US20050023105A1) in view of Lennon (US5345679A). Claim 5 Costanzo teaches the lateral locating device according to claim 4, where the final product of the stopping portion limits the fastening portion or the leaning portion within the placement portion. (Figure 3 teaches a rim around the cavity (70) that confines the ball (68) in the cavity. See also ¶0018.) Costanzo does not disclose wherein the stopping portion is larger than an outer diameter of the fastening portion or the leaning portion, and is for being deformed by pressure of an external force after the fastening portion or the leaning portion is placed in the placement portion of the body, so as to limit the fastening portion or the leaning portion within the placement portion by the stopping portion. However, Lennon (US5345679A) teaches the stopping portion is larger than an outer diameter of the fastening portion or the leaning portion, and is for being deformed by pressure of an external force after the fastening portion or the leaning portion is placed in the placement portion of the body, so as to limit the fastening portion or the leaning portion within the placement portion by the stopping portion. (Figure 3A teaches the formation of a ball socket (56) within a polymer blank (35) where the rim of the socket has an original size. Figure 3E teaches a manufacturing step where a punch (64) is used to deform the blank (35) to form a retaining lip (66) that is smaller than the diameter of the ball roller (32) and retains the ball within the socket.) One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known socket deformation technique of Lennon to the roller insertion and capturing method of Costanzo in order to use a method that prevents dislodgement of the sphere but permits a second surface of the sphere to project beyond the planar surface of the blank/module. (See Lennon Col. 3, Lines 35-43) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known socket deformation technique of Lennon to the roller insertion and capturing method of Costanzo because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D). Claim 6 Costanzo teaches the lateral locating device according to claim 4, where the final product of the stopping portion limits the fastening portion or the leaning portion within the placement portion. Costanzo does not disclose wherein after the fastening portion or the leaning portion is placed in the placement portion of the body, pressured of an external force is applied on the body to deform a material of the body to form the stopping portion, so as to limit the fastening portion or the leaning portion within the placement portion by the stopping portion. However, Lennon teaches after the fastening portion or the leaning portion is placed in the placement portion of the body, pressured of an external force is applied on the body to deform a material of the body to form the stopping portion, so as to limit the fastening portion or the leaning portion within the placement portion by the stopping portion. (Figure 3A teaches the formation of a ball socket (56) within a polymer blank (35) where the rim of the socket has an original size. Figure 3E teaches a manufacturing step where a punch (64) is used to deform the blank (35) to form a retaining lip (66) that is smaller than the diameter of the ball roller (32) and retains the ball within the socket.) One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known socket deformation technique of Lennon to the roller insertion and capturing method of Costanzo in order to use a method that prevents dislodgement of the sphere but permits a second surface of the sphere to project beyond the planar surface of the blank/module. (See Lennon Col. 3, Lines 35-43) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known socket deformation technique of Lennon to the roller insertion and capturing method of Costanzo because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form. Document Date Description of Relevant Subject Matter US4886377A 1987-12-17 Figure 9 teaches a module with roller balls (1) held captive in sockets (See Figure 1(d)) and protruding from one surface with an adjacent surface having assembly portions (14c) to be inserted into another object. US3750390A 1971-03-08 Figure 3 teaches a body (11) that has a socket (19) for a ball (20) that protrudes outward from said socket (See Figure 2) and is held captive in the socket. The body has an assembly portion (12) extending from a surface adjacent to the surface with the cavity. US1330158A 1918-07-15 Figures 2-3 show a method of capturing a ball (10) within a socket (9) that includes deformation of the rim (13) of the socket. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600. 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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. /MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 14, 2023
Application Filed
May 03, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Aug 05, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 22, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Nov 25, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 30, 2025
Response Filed
May 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Sep 13, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jan 29, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12585039
System and Method for UXO Detection
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569920
Downforce Indicator Device Having a Tool Receptacle
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570199
Cylindrical Cargo Container Construction
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565332
METHOD AND MOUNTING SYSTEM FOR MOUNTING A PROFILE COMPONENT ON AN AIRCRAFT STRUCTURAL COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558819
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CREATING ADDITIVE PARTS
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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+52.4%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 362 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