Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/484,223

GRAB BAR

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 10, 2023
Examiner
O BRIEN, JEFFREY D
Art Unit
3677
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Acorn Engineering Company
OA Round
4 (Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
389 granted / 775 resolved
-1.8% vs TC avg
Strong +66% interview lift
Without
With
+66.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
790
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.6%
+1.6% vs TC avg
§102
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
§112
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 775 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Objections Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20: “extended profiles exterior shapes” should be replaced with “extended profiles with exterior shapes”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deLoache, III et al. (US 10,883,273), herein referred to as ‘273, in view of Walker et al. (US 9,783,990), herein referred to as ‘990. For Claim 1, ‘273 discloses a grab bar assembly (Figure 1A), the grab bar assembly comprising: a body (12), the body having a first end (lower end in Figure 1A) and a second end (upper end in Figure 1A), the body (12) being formed of a single body section (12); a first end cap (14B), the first end cap (14B) being attached to the first end (lower end in Figure 1A) of the body (12); a second end cap (14A), the second end cap (14A) being attached to the second end (upper end in Figure 1A) of the body (12), and a first coupling and a second coupling, wherein the first and second coupling are identical to one another (fasteners/screws inserted through holes 18A, Column 2, Lines 47-50). ‘273 does not disclose wherein the first and second couplings are extended profiles having an exterior shape corresponding to an interior shape of the body and to an interior shape of the first end cap and to an interior shape of the second end cap, the first coupling extending from within a first end of the body into the first end cap and securing the first end cap to the first end of the body, the second coupling extending from within second end of the body into the second end cap and securing the second end cap to the second end of the body. ‘273 instead teaches first and second couplings (fasteners/screws inserted through holes 18A, Column 2, Lines 47-50), the first coupling (first fastener/screw inserted through hole 18A) securing the first end cap (14B) to the first end (lower end in Figure 1A) of the body (12), and the second coupling (second fastener/screw inserted through hole 18A) securing the second end cap (14A) to the second end (upper end in Figure 1A) of the body (12). ‘273 further teaches wherein the body, first end cap, and second end cap have corresponding interior shapes (as seen in Figure 2A). ‘990 teaches a grab bar assembly having a coupling (68) having an exterior shape corresponding to an interior shape of a first body section (12’) and to an interior shape of a second body section (12’’), the coupling extending from within a first end of the first body section (12’) into a first end of the second body section (12’’) and securing the second body section to the first body section. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first and second couplings of ‘273 with couplings having an exterior shape corresponding to the interior shape of the body section and first cap and the interior shape of the body section and the second cap as taught by ‘990. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for easier assembly of the end caps onto the body section without the need for tools. Examiner notes that the limitation “or multiple body sections” is claimed in the alternative. As the limitations preceding the term “or” have been anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art as indicated above, the “multiple body sections” and all further limitations thereof are not required by the prior art in order to anticipated or render obvious the claim. For Claim 2, ‘273 in view of ‘990 teaches the grab bar assembly according to claim 1. ‘273 does not disclose wherein the body is defined by multiple body sections, each of the body sections having a first end and a second end the multiple body sections are of one of the same length or different lengths. ‘990 teaches a grab bar assembly wherein a body is defined by multiple body sections (12’, 12’’), each of the body sections (12’, 12’’) having a first end and a second end, the multiple body sections (12’, 12’’) are the same length (as seen in Figures 10 and 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the single body of ‘273 with multiple body sections as taught by ‘990. One would be motivated to make such a modification to provide a greater length of grab bar assembly if the single body is not of sufficient length for a particular purpose. For Claim 3, ‘273 in view of ‘990 teaches the grab bar assembly according to claim 2. ‘273 does not disclose a third coupling, the third coupling having an exterior shape corresponding to an interior shape of the multiple body sections, the third coupling extending from within one of the multiple body sections into another of the multiple body sections and securing the multiple body sections to one another, wherein the third coupling is identical to the first coupling. ‘990 teaches a grab bar assembly having a coupling (68) having an exterior shape corresponding to an interior shape of a first body section (12’) and at least another portion of the coupling (68) having an exterior shape corresponding to an interior shape of a second body section (12’’), the coupling extending from within a first end of the first body section (12’) into a first end of the second body section (12’’) and securing the second body section to the first body section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the coupling of ‘990 to secure multiple body sections as taught by ‘990 to the grab bar assembly of ‘273. One would be motivated to make such a modification to provide a greater length of grab bar assembly if the single body is not of sufficient length for a particular purpose and to allow for easier assembly of the second body section to the first body section without the need for tools. It would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the third coupling identical to the first coupling in order to reduce the number of unique parts needed to be manufactured in order to produce a completed grab bar assembly. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to reduce manufacturing cost. For Claim 4, ‘273 discloses the grab bar assembly according to claim 1, wherein the body (12) includes a first bar portion (Annotated Figure 3B: A) and a second bar portion (B), the first and second bar portions (A, B) being joined by a corresponding web (C) extending therebetween, wherein the first and second bar portions (A, B) are outwardly convex. ‘273 does not disclose wherein the web is outwardly concave. ‘273 instead teaches wherein the web is outwardly convex. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the outwardly convex web as outwardly concave, as a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art (see MPEP 2144.04). One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a more ergonomic grab bar. For Claim 5, ‘273 discloses the grab bar assembly according to claim 4, wherein the body (12) includes a stanchion (22) on an opposing side from the web (C) and extending away from the first and second bar portions (A, B) to a mounting flange (16). For Claim 6, ‘273 discloses the grab bar assembly according to claim 5, wherein the first and second bar portions (A, B) are off set from the stanchion (22). For Claim 7, ‘273 discloses the grab bar assembly according to claim 5, wherein the first and second bar portions (A, B) are spaced apart from the mounting flange (16). For Claim 8, ‘273 discloses the grab bar assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first and second end caps (14B, 14A) include first rail portion (Annotated Figure 2A: D1, D2) and a second rail portion (E1, E2), the first and second rail portions (D1, D2, E1, E2) being joined by a corresponding web (F1, F2) extending therebetween, wherein the first and second rail portions (D1, D2, E1, E2) are outwardly convex (as seen in Figure 2A). ‘273 does not disclose wherein the web (F1, F2) is outwardly concave. ‘273 instead teaches wherein the web is outwardly convex. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the outwardly convex web as outwardly concave, as a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art (see MPEP 2144.04). One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a more ergonomic grab bar. For Claim 9, ‘273 discloses the grab bar assembly according to claim 8, wherein the first and second end caps (14B, 14A) each include a stanchion (22B, 22A) on an opposing side from the corresponding web (F1, F2) and extending away from the first and second rail portions (D1, D2, E1, E2) to a mounting flange (G1, G2). For Claim 10, ‘273 discloses the grab bar assembly according to claim 9, wherein the first and second rail portions (D1, D2, E1, E2) are off set from the stanchion (22B, 22A). For Claim 11, ‘273 discloses the grab bar assembly according to claim 9, wherein the first and second rail portions (D1, D2, E1, E2) are spaced apart from the mounting flange (G1, G2). For Claim 12, ‘273 discloses the grab bar assembly according to claim 9, wherein the first end cap (14B) includes a profile wall (17B) at a terminal end of the first end cap (14B), the profile wall (17B) having a shape (as seen in Figure 2A) corresponding to a profile defined by the first and second rail portions (D1, E1) and the corresponding web (F1). For Claim 13, ‘273 discloses the grab bar assembly according to claim 12, wherein the profile wall (17B) defines an acute angle (Figure 1D: alpha) with respect to a plane defined by the mounting flange (G1). For Claim 14, ‘273 discloses the grab bar assembly according to claim 9, wherein the second end cap (14A) includes an end wall (17) at a terminal end of the second end cap (14A), the end wall (17) having a shape dissimilar (as seen in Figure 1A) to a profile defined by the first and second rail portions (D2, E2) and the corresponding web (F2). For Claim 15, ‘273 discloses the grab bar assembly according to claim 14, wherein the end wall (17) defines an acute angle (Figure 1D: alpha) with respect to a plane defined by the mounting flange (G2). For Claim 16, ‘273 discloses the grab bar assembly according to claim 9, wherein the second end cap (14A) includes an end wall (17) at a terminal end of the second end cap (14A), the end wall (17) having a trapezoidal shape (as seen in Figure 1A). For Claim 17, ‘273 discloses the grab bar assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first end cap (14B) is different from the second end cap (14A). For Claim 18, ‘273 discloses the grab bar assembly according to claim 1, wherein the body section is an extrusion. Examiner notes that this would be considered to be a product-by-process claim due to the limitation “extrusion”. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). For Claim 19, ‘273 discloses the grab bar assembly according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion of each of the first and second end caps is an extrusion. Examiner notes that this would be considered to be a product-by-process claim due to the limitation “extrusion”. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). For Claim 20, ‘273 discloses a ligature resistant grab bar assembly (Figure 1A), the ligature resistant grab bar assembly comprising: a body (12), the body having a first end (lower end in Figure 1A) and a second end (upper end in Figure 1A), the body (12) being formed of a single body section (12), the body section (12) including a first bar portion (Annotated Figure 3B: A) and a second bar portion (B), the first and second bar portions (A, B) being joined by a first web (C) extending therebetween, the body section (12) further including a first stanchion (22) on an opposing side from the first web (C) and extending away from the first and second bar portions (A, B) to a first mounting flange (16); first and second end caps (14B, 14A), the first end cap (14B) being attached to the first end (lower end in Figure 1A) of the body (12), the second end cap (14A) being attached to the second end (upper end in Figure 1A) of the body (12); the first and second end caps (14B, 14A) include a first rail portion (Annotated Figure 2A: D1, D2) and a second rail portion (E1, E2), the first and second rail portions (D1, D2, E1, E2) being joined by a second web (F1, F2) extending therebetween, the first and second end caps (14B, 14A) each further including a second stanchion (22B, 22A) on an opposing side from the second web (F1, F2) and extending away from the first and second rail portions (D1, D2, E1, E2) to a second mounting flange (G1, G2); the first end cap (14B) including a profile wall (17B) at a terminal end thereof, the profile wall (17B) having a shape (as seen in Figure 2A) corresponding to a profile defined by the first and second rail portions (D1, E1) of the first end cap (14B) and the second web (F1) of the first end cap (14B) extending therebetween; the second end cap (14A) including an end wall (17) at a terminal end thereof, the end wall (17) having a shape dissimilar (as seen in Figure 1A) to the profile defined by the first and second rail portions (D2, E2) of the second end cap (14A) and the second web (F2) of the second end cap (14A) extending therebetween, the end wall (17) defining an acute angle (Figure 1D: alpha) with respect to a plane defined by the second mounting flange (G2) of the second end cap (14A), and at least first and second couplings, wherein the first and second couplings are identical (fasteners/screws inserted through holes 18A, Column 2, Lines 47-50), ‘273 does not disclose wherein the first and second couplings are extended profiles with exterior shapes respectfully corresponding to an interior shape of the body and an interior shape of the first end cap and an interior shape of the second end cap, the first coupling extending from within the body into the first end cap and securing the first end cap to the first end of the body, the second coupling extending from within the body into the second end cap and securing the second end cap to the second end of the body. ‘273 instead teaches the first coupling (first fastener/screw inserted through hole 18A) securing the first end cap (14B) to the first end (lower end in Figure 1A) of the body (12), and the second coupling (second fastener/screw inserted through hole 18A) securing the second end cap (14A) to the second end (upper end in Figure 1A) of the body (12). ‘273 further teaches wherein the body, first end cap, and second end cap have corresponding interior shapes (as seen in Figure 2A). ‘990 teaches a grab bar assembly having a coupling (68) having an exterior shape corresponding to an interior shape of a first body section (12’) and to an interior shape of a second body section (12’’), the coupling extending from within a first end of the first body section (12’) into a first end of the second body section (12’’) and securing the second body section to the first body section. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first and second couplings of ‘273 with couplings having an exterior shape corresponding to the interior shape of the body section and first cap and the interior shape of the body section and the second cap as taught by ‘990. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for easier assembly of the end caps onto the body section without the need for tools. Examiner notes that the limitation “or multiple body sections” is claimed in the alternative. As the limitations preceding the term “or” have been anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art as indicated above, the “multiple body sections” and all further limitations thereof are not required by the prior art in order to anticipated or render obvious the claim. PNG media_image1.png 527 517 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 578 821 media_image2.png Greyscale Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Claims 1-20, Applicant argues that ‘273 teaches end cap 14A includes a lip received into the interior of the opening of the body 12. This is incorrect. No such lip is present in or disclosed by ‘273. It is unclear what Applicant is referring to. As best understood, Examiner believes Applicant is suggesting that exterior surfaces 24A and 22A of end cap 14A are received into the interior of member 12 (at 24 and 22). This is incorrect. ‘273 clearly discloses that “Top end cap 14A extends grip front profile portion 27 via a matching circular or elliptical front profile portion 24A and a matching flattened rear profile portion through a top end cap front profile portion 24A and also extends side channels 22 through matching side channels 22A up to the closure forming planar top surface 17” (Column 3, Lines 48-54). Applicant’s arguments are therefore not convincing. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8646151 teaches a similar ligature resistant grab bar that is pertinent to applicant’s disclosure but has not been relied upon in the current rejection. US 2014/0097394 teaches connecting multiple grab bar body sections together via couplings and is pertinent to applicant’s disclosure but has not been relied upon in the current rejection. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeffrey O'Brien whose telephone number is (571)270-3655. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5:30. 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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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. /Jeffrey O'Brien/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 10, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 01, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 08, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 23, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603948
ANGLE ADJUSTMENT DEVICE, SUPPORT, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595696
Switch Hinge
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584336
DOOR AND WINDOW SWITCHING MECHANISM WITH STROKE ADJUSTMENTFUNCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571243
Lift-Up Door Opening Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571245
DAMPING SYSTEM FOR DAMPING A MOVEMENT OF A FLAP OF A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
50%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+66.3%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 775 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