Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/527,382

LATCH AND CONNECTOR

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Dec 04, 2023
Examiner
PATEL, HARSHAD C
Art Unit
2831
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
BIZLINK INTERNATIONAL CORP.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 12m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
912 granted / 1105 resolved
+14.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 12m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
1133
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
39.8%
-0.2% vs TC avg
§102
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
§112
13.5%
-26.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1105 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “200” on Fig. 4 has been used to designate both first connector assembly” and “something else”. 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. 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. 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, 7-10 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herbrechtsmeier et al. (US 8,979,568) hereafter Herbrechtsmeier. PNG media_image1.png 360 323 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, Herbrechtsmeier, discloses a latch 8, comprising: a handle H (see annotated fig.); and two baffles 7 respectively disposed on two opposite ends of the handle H and opposite to each other, wherein each of the baffles comprises a main body (body of 7), wherein a front end portion of the main body is recessed (at 11) with a pivoting portion 22 and a locking portion 9, the main body has a first opening 11 and a second opening 22, the first opening 11 communicates with an inner side surface of the pivoting portion 22, the second opening communicates with an inner side surface of the locking portion 9, and a bottom surface BS of the main body and the handle are connected through a slope such that the handle H is suspended relative to the bottom surface BS. Regarding claim 7, Herbrechtsmeier, discloses each of two turning points of connection portions between the handle and the baffles is provided with an oblique reinforcing rib RB. Regarding claim 8, Herbrechtsmeier, discloses the slope S is (inherently, being it is sloped) an incline (see annotated fig.). Regarding claim 9, Herbrechtsmeier, discloses connector 1 (fig. 5), comprising: a connector assembly 1 comprising a first housing 2, wherein two supporting columns 13 (fig. 2) are protruding from each of two opposite side surfaces of the first housing 2; and two latches 8, and each of the latches 8 comprising: a handle H; and two baffles 7 respectively disposed on two opposite ends of the handle H and opposite to each other, wherein each of the baffles 7 comprises a main body (body of 7), wherein a front end portion of the main body is recessed (at 11) with a pivoting portion 22 and a locking portion 9, the main body has a first opening 11 and a second opening 22, the first opening 11 communicates with an inner side surface of the pivoting portion 22, the second opening 22 communicates with an inner side surface of the locking portion 9 (being an integral piece), and a bottom surface BS (se annotated fig.) of the main body and the handle H are connected through a slope S such that the handle H is suspended relative to the bottom surface BS, and wherein the pivoting portions 22 of the latches are pivotally connected to the corresponding supporting columns 13 respectively. Regarding claim 10, Herbrechtsmeier, discloses a cable (not shown, however a cable outlet 26 is used for entering into the connector assembly), wherein the connector assembly 1 is a wire end connector, the first housing 1 comprises an inner mold 3 and an outer mold 2, the inner mold is formed on a surface of the cable by using an injection molding process (it is to be noted that injection molding process is a product-by-process claim and even though such claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, as in the present situation, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985),the outer mold is formed on a surface of the inner mold by using the injection molding process (it is to be noted that injection molding process is a product-by-process claim and even though such claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, as in the present situation, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and the cable passes out of the first housing from a lateral surface of the first housing along a width direction of the latches (see fig. 5, in which, cable outlet 26 is extending in width direction of the latch 8). Regarding claim 16, Herbrechtsmeier, discloses each of two turning points of connection portions between the handle and the baffles is provided with an oblique reinforcing rib. Regarding claim 17, Herbrechtsmeier, discloses the slope S is (inherently, being it is sloped) an incline. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-6 and 11-15 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 claim 2, the prior art of record does not discloses a latch comprising a metal sheet disposed in the main body, and wherein the metal sheet has an anti-wear portion, and the anti-wear portion is exposed through a second opening as required in combination with other limitations of this claim. Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record does not discloses a connector comprising a metal sheet disposed in a main body of a latch, and wherein the metal sheet has an anti-wear portion, and the anti-wear portion is exposed through a second opening as required in combination with other limitations of this claim. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO 892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARSHAD C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8289. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am - 5.00 pm (EST). 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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at 571-270 3119. 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. /HARSHAD C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 04, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597718
TERMINAL UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597734
UNIVERSAL ELECTRICAL PLUG
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12573792
RETRACTABLE CONNECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573790
CONNECTOR-EQUIPPED ELECTRICAL WIRE AND CONNECTOR HOUSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573780
TERMINAL MODULE WITH TERMINAL HAVING PAIR OF DISPLACEMENT-RESTRICTING WALLS
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+8.7%)
1y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1105 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