Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/481,064

RETAINING COMPONENT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 04, 2023
Examiner
MILLNER, MONICA E
Art Unit
3632
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Lisa Dräxlmaier GmbH
OA Round
4 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
873 granted / 1125 resolved
+25.6% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1154
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
39.9%
-0.1% vs TC avg
§102
31.3%
-8.7% vs TC avg
§112
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1125 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Claims 1, 7 and 8 are amended. 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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,463,631 to Noda in view of US 6,516,498 to LaCoy et al. Regarding claim 1, Noda '631 discloses a retaining component for securing a cable bundle (fig. 9), the retaining component comprising: a main body 10 having a base 11 and a foot element 31 formed on the base, two webs 12/16 extending from the base, wherein each of the two webs include an outer side, wherein the two webs extend parallel to one another in a longitudinal direction to form a receiving area for receiving the cable bundle 91 and the receiving area is U-shaped (fig. 2B), and wherein at least one of the webs includes a latching element 14 disposed on the outer side of the web 12, and a cover element 40, wherein the cover element comprises two holes 55/56 configured to be brought into an engagement with the latching element 14 of at least one of the webs 12/16, and wherein, in a closed position, the engagement is at least one of friction- locking and positive-locking (col. 10, lines 12-20). The examiner submits that to round the U-shaped receiving area is a mere change of shape that is well-known and used in the art (see cited prior art including rounded receiving areas, for example). Noting that the clamps having a cover and U-shaped receiving areas, no matter if round or square, are functionally equivalent when it comes to supporting and holding objects. In fact, LaCoy '498 teaches wherein the two webs 111/111 extend parallel to one another in a longitudinal direction to form a receiving area for receiving a cable and the receiving area is a rounded U-shape (fig. 3). PNG media_image1.png 390 428 media_image1.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the U-shaped receiving area taught in Noda '631 with the rounded U- shape area taught in LaCoy '498 in order to enhance support of the held objects. Regarding claim 2, Noda '631, as modified, discloses wherein the cover element 40 includes a cutout section facing a direction of the receiving area (fig. 9). Regarding claim 3, Noda '631, as modified, discloses wherein the main body 10 and the base 11 are arranged at an angle to one another. Regarding claim 4, Noda '631, as modified, discloses wherein the main body 10 and the foot element 31 are arranged at an angle to one another. Regarding claim 5, Noda '631, as modified, discloses wherein the retaining component and the cover element are made of plastic (col. 7, line 5). Regarding claim 6, Noda '631, as modified, discloses wherein the foot element 31 is coupled to the base 11 on a side opposite the webs 12/16, the foot element 31 is elongated along the longitudinal direction, and the foot element includes a plurality of second latching elements 34/35. Regarding claim 7, Noda '631, as modified, discloses wherein the cover element 40 includes a press-on element 46 and a cutout section (annotated below – see circled region), the press-on element 46 includes a radius 51ab directed inwardly towards the cutout section of the cover element 40 to facilitate assembly of the cover element 40 to the at least one of the webs 12 and the cutout section faces the receiving area (as annotated below). PNG media_image2.png 384 492 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 8, Noda '631 discloses retaining component for securing a cable bundle (fig. 9), the retaining component comprising: a main body having a base 11 and a foot element 31 formed on the base, the foot element 31 extending outwardly from a first side of the base and having a plurality of second latching elements 34/35; two webs 12/16 extending from a second side of the base, the second side different than the first side (one side has a foot and the other side has webs, i.e., different), each of the two webs include an outer side, the two webs 12/16 extend parallel to one another in a longitudinal direction to form a receiving area for receiving the cable bundle, the receiving area is a U-shape (fig.1b/2b), and at least one of the webs includes a first latching element 13 disposed on the outer side of the web; and a cover element 40, wherein the cover element comprises two holes 55/56 configured to be brought into an engagement with the first latching element 13 of at least one of the webs 12, the cover element includes a press-on element 46 and a cut out section (as annotated below), the press-on element 46 includes a radius 51ab directed inwardly towards the cut out section of the cover element to facilitate assembly of the cover element 40 to the at least one of the webs 12, and the cutout section faces the receiving area, wherein, in a closed position, the engagement is at least one of friction-locking and positive- locking. PNG media_image2.png 384 492 media_image2.png Greyscale The examiner submits that to round the U-shaped receiving area is a mere change of shape that is well-known and used in the art (see cited prior art including rounded receiving areas, for example). Noting that the clamps having a cover and U-shaped receiving areas, no matter if round or square, are functionally equivalent when it comes to supporting and holding objects. In fact, LaCoy '498 teaches wherein the two webs 111/111 extend parallel to one another in a longitudinal direction to form a receiving area for receiving a cable and the receiving area is a rounded U-shape (fig. 3). PNG media_image3.png 391 429 media_image3.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the U-shaped receiving area taught in Noda '631 with the rounded U- shape area taught in LaCoy '498 in order to enhance support of the held objects. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant respectfully submits that the rounded U-shape as claimed is not well-known or used in the art. The examiner disagrees and again submits that to round the U-shaped receiving area is a mere change of shape that is well-known and used in the art (see cited prior art including rounded receiving areas, for example). Noting that the clamps having a cover and U-shaped receiving areas, no matter if round or square, are functionally equivalent when it comes to supporting and holding objects. Note the annotated figures below showing the receiving areas of the prior art versus applicant’s invention. All of which are used to support cables or the like within a receiving area. PNG media_image4.png 455 1011 media_image4.png Greyscale Further noting that claim 1 actually recites, “wherein the two webs extend parallel to one another in a longitudinal direction to form a receiving area for receiving the cable bundle and the receiving area is rounded U-shape” Noda ‘631 as modified by LaCoy ‘498 clearly teaches a receiving area of a rounded U-shaped. Note the rounded area of the U-shape taguht in LaCoy ‘498. PNG media_image1.png 390 428 media_image1.png Greyscale Applicant argues that, “[w]hile the Office relies on LaCoy to provide the rounded U-shape, LaCoy, however, does not disclose the use of a rounded U-shape. Rather, LaCoy states that "the yoke 10 is rectangular in section", see column 2, line 28 (emphasis added).” The examiner again submits that the claims recite “wherein the two webs extend parallel to one another in a longitudinal direction to form a receiving area … and the receiving area is rounded U-shape.” Clearly, LaCoy ‘498 teaches two webs 111/111 that extend parallel to one another in a longitudinal direction to form a receiving area which is a rounded U-shape. Note the circled rounded U-shaped taught in LaCoy ‘498. PNG media_image5.png 361 396 media_image5.png Greyscale Also noting that modifying Noda (as annotated below) in view of the rounded U-shape receiving area taught in LaCoy (as annotated above) would still achieve the function of supporting cables. The rejection is amended in light of the claim amendments and maintained. PNG media_image6.png 388 626 media_image6.png Greyscale 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm. 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. /MONICA E MILLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 04, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 03, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 08, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 18, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 27, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593931
MAGNETIC HARDWARE DISPLAY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590750
REFRIGERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592214
FOOT CONTROLLED SWITCH STABILIZING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584535
VIBRATION ISOLATION SYSTEM ADJUSTABLE IN THREE AXES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12558179
JOINT STRUCTURES AND RELATED DEVICES AND METHODS
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+21.9%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1125 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