Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/660,629

ADHESIVE BASED CABLE TIE MOUNT

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
May 10, 2024
Examiner
GARFT, CHRISTOPHER
Art Unit
3632
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Tyco Electronics UK Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
818 granted / 1392 resolved
+6.8% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
73 currently pending
Career history
1465
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
25.1%
-14.9% vs TC avg
§112
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1392 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the present application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “each of said nubs are completely surrounded by the adhesive” constitutes new matter in the Examiner’s position. Applicant’s originally filed application does not mention such a configuration and does not show the configuration in the figures either. Therefore, there is no reasonable basis for concluding that the inventor possessed the claimed invention in claim 19 at the time of filing. It is suggested that the Applicant cancel this claim to overcome this issue. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, 13, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geissinger US 3454249 (hereinafter Geissinger) in view of Wang US 2017/0210087 (hereinafter Wang). PNG media_image1.png 468 586 media_image1.png Greyscale Re. Cl. 1, Geissinger discloses: An adhesive based cable tie mount (Fig. 5) for attaching on a mounting surface and thereby mount cable ties to tie a plurality of cable wires (see Fig. 8), wherein said cable tie mount comprising: a top surface (see top of 40, Fig. 5) comprising a first end, a second end and a central portion for placing said cable wires (see Fig. 8); a bottom surface (see Fig. 5, spaces between the serrations with on 46; shown in annotated figure 5) configured to be attached with said mounting surface (see Fig. 5 and 7), said bottom surface comprises a plurality of nubs (see Fig. 5, formed by the serrations on 46) of predefined dimensions disposed in a spaced apart manner whereby said nubs define a bond-line thickness between said bottom surface and said mounting surface to receive adhesive (see Fig. 5 and 7); said nubs protrude downward from said bottom surface to hold said bottom surface at an elevated height above said mounting device (see Fig. 5 and 7, the serrations hold the bottom surface, between the serrations, away from the surface 60); and a receiving cut-out portion (48, Fig. 5) formed between said top surface and the bottom surface to accommodate said cable ties therein (see Fig. 8-9). Re. Cl. 2, Geissinger discloses: said plurality of nubs of predefined dimension are placed in a symmetrical manner on the said bottom surface (see Fig. 5-6, the serrations are symmetrical). Re. Cls. 3 and 7, Geissinger discloses: said cable tie mount comprises at least one groove formed on said bottom surface (50, 52, Fig. 5-6). Re. Cls. 6, 10, 13 and 16 Geissinger discloses: said top surface and said bottom surface being molded together as a single piece while maintaining said receiving cut-out portion (see Fig. 5, the device is a single piece construction; Re. the term “molded,” in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation patentably distinguish over Geissinger. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e cable tie mount, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. molding. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Re. Cl. 17, Geissinger discloses: said nubs are spaced apart from an outer perimeter of said bottom surface (see Fig. 5, the middle two serrations for example are spaced from an outer perimeter of the bottom surface closest to 50/52). Re. Cls. 1 and 18-19, Geissinger uses serrations and channels (50, 52) to enable adhesive to penetrate into and secure to a surface (Col. 3, Lines 49-55) but does not disclose the bottom surface defines a greater percentage of a surface area of the bottom of the cable tie mount than the nubs to receive the adhesive (Cl. 1), said bottom surface extends to an outer perimeter of the cable tie mount, said nubs being spaced apart from the outer perimeter of the cable tie mount (Cl. 18) or each of said nubs are completely surrounded by the adhesive applied to the bottom surface (Cl. 19). Wang discloses an alternate adhesive attachment system (see Fig. 1, 4, 7) which includes a plurality of nubs (212, Fig. 4 and 7) to define a bond line thickness between a bottom surface and a mounting surface (see Fig. 4 for instance), wherein the bottom surface (see Fig. 4, portion without nubs 212) defines a greater percentage of a surface area of the bottom of the cable tie mount than the nubs to receive the adhesive (see Fig. 7, the nubs 212 define less of a percentage of the surface area of surface 710 than the areas where 212 are not; further Paragraph 0124 discussed using less than two distributions of 712, 714 which would take up even less of a percentage of the surface area), the nubs being placed in a symmetrical manner on the bottom surface (see Fig. 4 and 7) and said nubs are spaced apart from an outer perimeter of said bottom surface (see Fig. 4 and 7). Re. Cl. 18, Wang discloses said bottom surface extends to an outer perimeter of the cable tie mount, said nubs being spaced apart from the outer perimeter of the cable tie mount (see Fig. 7). Re. Cl. 18, Wang discloses each of said nubs are completely surrounded by the adhesive applied to the bottom surface (see 430, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the serrations and channels (50, 52) of Geissinger with the nub configuration of Wang with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held obvious to replace one known means with another to achieve a predictable result. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR). Further, Wang disclose such an adhesive configuration could be used in similar materials or dissimilar materials (Paragraph 0001, Lines 5-9), thus providing an added advantage. Claims 4, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geissinger in view of Wang as applied above, and in further view of Mangone US 9939086 (hereinafter Mangone). Re. Cls. 4, 8 and 11, Geissinger does not disclose said cable tie mount comprises at least one notch formed at a peripheral end of said cable tie mount to guide said cable wires. Mangone discloses a cable affixing clip (Fig. 1) which includes a base (16, Fig. 1) which includes at least one notch (20, Fig. 1) formed at a peripheral end of said cable tie mount to guide said cable wires (see Fig. 1). 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 Geissinger device to include the notch of Mangone with reasonable expectation of success since Mangone states that such a modification enables for receiving penetrating fastening devices like screws or nails that may be used in lieu of or in conjunction with the adhesive layer to attach the base to a desired location on a support surface (Col. 3, Lines 1-7). Claims 5, 9, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geissinger in view of Wang as applied above, and in further view of McSherry US 3913876 (hereinafter McSherry). Re. Cls. 5, 9, 12 and 14, Geissinger does not disclose said top surface is provided with a predefined slanting towards said central portion of said top surface extending between said first and end and said second end. McSherry discloses a cable tie mount (Fig. 1) which includes a top surfaces (16, Fig. 2) that is provided with a predefined slanting towards said central portion of said top surface extending between said first and end and said second end (see 31, Fig. 4-6). 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 Geissinger device to include the predetermined slant of McSherry with reasonable expectation of success since McSherry states that such a modification facilitates compact positioning of the wires/conductors (Col. 3, Lines 60-65). Re. Cl. 15 Geissinger discloses: said top surface and said bottom surface being molded together as a single piece while maintaining said receiving cut-out portion (see Fig. 5, the device is a single piece construction; Re. the term “molded,” in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation patentably distinguish over Geissinger. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e cable tie mount, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. molding. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a different combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Winton US 6367745, Vaccaro US 10851916, and Stankowski US 6149109 disclose other known cable ties which are presented to the Applicant for their consideration. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.. 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. /CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 10, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Oct 02, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 20, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601446
BRAKING SYSTEM FOR HOLDING A SCREEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599189
HELMET CAMERA SYSTEM, FASTENING DEVICE, HELMET SYSTEM, AND CAMERA SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590667
HEIGHT ADJUSTABLE HOLDER FOR A MULTIPLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12573981
TRESTLE BASE AND TRESTLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565985
LIGHT HOOK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
59%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+22.8%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1392 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