Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/616,883

Stacking element for exhibition stand frames

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 26, 2024
Examiner
GEHMAN, BRYON P
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Aluvision N.V.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
1435 granted / 1949 resolved
+3.6% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
1995
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
51.0%
+11.0% vs TC avg
§102
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
§112
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1949 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 26, 2026 has been entered. 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. Claims 6-7, 9-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 6, line 3, “the third positioning element” lacks singular antecedent basis or is inconsistent with line 2. In claims 11 and 12, line 3 of each, “a fourth positioning element” lacks antecedent basis, as the amendment to claim 11, line 2 renders the term without antecedent basis. In claim 12, the definition and positioning relative to “a first recess” and a “third recess” are indefinite, as such are insufficiently defined to render their disposition definite. In claim 10 and 20, lines 2-3, the claimed dimension relationship is indeterminate from the claimed stacking element alone in relation to an unclaimed, imaginary “exhibition stand profile”. Also, a singular “exhibition stand profile” lacks particular antecedent basis. 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 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nichols (5,037,027). Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 2804406. Each discloses a stacking element (40; 16; respectively) configured for arranging between exhibition stand frames (individual tote boxes; packing boxes 12) for facilitating stacking of the exhibition stand frames, the stacking element comprising a base (40a; 27) with a first surface (top surface of 40a; top surface of 27) and a second surface (bottom surface of 40a; bottom surface of 27) opposite thereto, the first surface including a first positioning element (41; 19 and 19) thereon, which extends from the first surface in a first direction, the second surface including a second positioning element (44; 22 and 22) thereon, which extends from the second surface in a second direction, wherein the first and second positioning elements comprise flat wall members, wherein one (44; 22) of the first positioning element and the second positioning element is provided to strike against an inner side of the upright edge of a first exhibition stand frame (one of a lower of the tote boxes; one of a lower of the packing boxes) when the stacking element is arranged on the first exhibition stand frame, and wherein the other (41; 19 and 19) of the first positioning element and the second positioning element is provided to extend over an upright edge on an outer side of a second exhibition stand frame (one of an upper of the tote boxes; one of an upper of the packing boxes) in use when two exhibition stand frames are stacked. The to-be associated, but not claimed exhibition stand frames are formed by at least four exhibition stand frame profiles (see Figures 1 and 2; see Figure 1), which together form a frame defining an exhibition stand panel plane (plane defined by the surfaces 40a of the same level; plane defined by the surfaces 27 of the same level), wherein the at least four exhibition stand frame profiles each have a side wall (42 or 43; 19 and 19) bounded by an upright edge (top edge of 40 or 41; 25, 25, 25) standing upright relative to the exhibition stand panel plane. As to claim 19, the stacking element (40; 16) is integrally formed. 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 2-5, 8, 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 2804406 in view of DE 2652230. DE 2804406 disclose a planar base, but not provided in a complete triangular shape. However, DE 2652230 discloses a similar stacking element (stacking arm 11) wherein the base (15) is substantially triangular, wherein the base has three peripheral outer angle sides comprising a first angle side, a second angle side and a third angle side, and the positioning elements lie substantially parallel to the outer sides (side edges) of the base. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the planar base of the stacking element of DE 2804406 with a triangular shape in the manner of DE 2652230 as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a supporting surface similar in shape to that of a corner of a received exhibition stand frame to more completely support the received exhibition stand frame. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. As to claim 3, to provide the shape of the base as a right triangle is again a mere particular shape. As to claim 4, the first positioning element (19) of DE 2804406 lies adjacent of one of the sides of the substantially triangular base in the combination. As to claim 5, the first positioning element (19 and 19) of DE 2804406 comprises a first positioning element portion (one19) and a second positioning element portion (other 19) provided adjacently of a first side and a second side of the triangular base, respectively. As to claims 8 and 10, DE 2652230 further discloses a first recess (shown space between 19 and 20) is provided between the first positioning element portion (19) and the second positioning element portion (20), the first recess provided at a position of an intersection between two connecting angle sides of the at least three angle sides. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the stacking element of DE 2804406 with a first recess in the manner of DE 2652230 as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a workable construction requiring less material to provide. As to claim 10, the first recess of DE 2652230 has a dimension greater than a width of the upright edge of an exhibition stand profile. As to claims 13 and 14, the second positioning element (22) is provided at a distance from one of the angle sides and extends over at least a portion of the length of a respective angle side, the distance between the one angle side and the second positioning element corresponds with the width of the corresponding exhibition stand profile. Claims 6-7, 9 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hoskins (4,787,553). The previous art does not disclose additional third positioning elements. However, Hoskins discloses a similar stacking element (1) including two third positioning elements (24 and 25) extending parallel to a first positioning element (3 or 4) and located at a distance from the first positioning element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the stacking element of DE 2804406 with additional third positioning elements in the manner of Hoskins as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a better positioning of the exhibition stand frames with the stacking element. As to claim 9, a first recess (shown space between 19 and 20) is provided between the first positioning element portion (19) and the second positioning element portion (20 of DE 2652230, the first recess provided at a position of an intersection (bisector of the space) between two connecting angle sides and a second recess (space between elements 21 of Hoskins) provided between the two third positioning elements (21, 21) which is aligned with the first recess (on the bisecting line), the second recess having a dimension greater than a width of an upright edge of one of the exhibition stand profiles. As to claim 15, the first positioning element (19 and 19) of DE 2804406 comprises a first positioning element portion (one 19) and a second positioning element portion (other 19) provided adjacently of a first side and a second side of the triangular base, respectively. As to claims 16-18, various recesses are provided between the positioning elements and upstanding inside vertical outer wall surfaces of the fastening device. As to claim 20, the first recess of DE 2652230 has a dimension greater than a width of the upright edge of an exhibition stand profile. Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed January 26, 2026, with respect to the previous grounds of rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous grounds of rejection under 102 and 103 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new altered grounds of rejection employing the same main reference to Hoskins are made, as well as new 112(b) rejections and some maintained 112(b) rejections. The rejected claims are not seen to distinguish from the structure of the new grounds of rejection or be clear under 112(b). Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the additional references listed on the attached PTO-892, which, while not relied upon for the claim rejection, these references are deemed relevant to the claimed invention as a whole. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON P GEHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4555. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday through Thursday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm. 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, Orlando Aviles-Bosques, can be reached on (571) 270-5531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /BRYON P GEHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736 Bryon P. Gehman Primary Examiner Art Unit 3736 BPG
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 26, 2024
Application Filed
May 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Sep 03, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jan 26, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600545
TRAYS, PALLETIZED TRAY, BLANKS AND METHOD FOR FORMING A TRAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595115
CIRCULAR SAW BLADE HOLDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594749
RECYCLABLE BAG
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595102
ARTICLE CARRIER AND BLANK THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583657
Tool Accessory Packaging and Tool Accessory Product
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+30.8%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1949 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