Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 01, 2026
Application No. 18/744,723

WIRE MANAGEMENT DEVICE

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Jun 17, 2024
Priority
Jun 17, 2023 — TW 112206230
Examiner
SANGHERA, SYMREN K
Art Unit
3735
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
BIZLINK INTERNATIONAL CORP.
OA Round
2 (Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
64%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allowance Rate
86 granted / 167 resolved
-18.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
236
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
38.7%
-1.3% vs TC avg
§102
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
§112
33.3%
-6.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 167 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Response to Amendment This office action is in response to the reply filed on 6/25/2026, wherein claims 1, 5, and 8 were amended, claim 7 is cancelled. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 11-15 were withdrawn. 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. Claims 5 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. Claim 5 . Claims 6 and 9 directly or indirectly depend from claim 5 and are also rejected. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 2-4 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites the limitation "a wire management structure" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3-4 directly or indirectly depend from claim 2 and are also rejected. Claim 3 recites the limitation "a" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In general, this claim appears to be repetitive of claim 1 and could be considered a duplicate claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "a hollow portion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In general, this claim appears to be repetitive of claim 1 and could be considered a duplicate claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Ting (US 20030201358 A1). With respect to claim 1, Ting discloses a wire management device, comprising: a base (10); a cover body (20) configured to move away from the base to an open position (fig 5) and move toward the base to a closed position (fig 4); a wire management structure (22) connected to the cover body, wherein the wire management structure comprises a first wire management member (232) and a second wire management member (231), a wire management slot (vicinity of 21) located between the base and the cover body, wherein when the cover body (20) is in the open position, the wire management slot is exposed by a gap between the base and the cover body (figure 1), and when the cover body is in the closed position, the gap (gap between 10 and 20 in figure 1) is closed so that the wire management slot is located in a sheltered space formed by the base and the cover body; and at least one engaging post (13 and 14) and a stopper piece (bottom of 13), wherein the at least one engaging post (13 and 14) is connected to the base (10), the stopper piece is connected to the at least one engaging post, the second wire management member (231) is retained between the stopper piece and the base, wherein the first wire management member (232) has a hollow portion, and the at least one engaging post (portion with 14) passes into the hollow portion (232). PNG media_image1.png 764 434 media_image1.png Greyscale With respect to claim 2, Ting discloses the wire management device of claim 1, further comprising a wire management structure (22) connected to the cover body, the wire management slot being formed around an outer edge of the wire management structure (positionally this is true), wherein when the cover body is in the closed position, the wire management structure is located in the sheltered space formed by the base and the cover body. With respect to claim 3, Ting discloses the wire management device of claim 2, further comprising at least one engaging post and a stopper piece (as defined in claim 1 as 14/13 and the bottom of 13), wherein the at least one engaging post is connected to the base, the stopper piece is connected to the at least one engaging post, wherein the wire management structure is at least partially retained between the stopper piece and the base. With respect to claim 10, Ting discloses the wire management device of claim 1, wherein the wire management slot is configured for winding a wire (intended function), one end of the wire is connected to a connection port, wherein when the cover body is in the closed position, the base and the cover body (10,20) form a notch (15) in the gap, and the notch is configured to fitly engage the connection port (intended function). Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Nie (US 10462550 B2). With respect to claim 1, Nie discloses a wire management device, comprising: a base; (10) a cover body (12) configured to move away from the base to an open position and move toward the base to a closed position; a wire management structure (18) connected to the cover body, wherein the wire management structure comprises a first wire management member (18 – 184 and below) and a second wire management member (18 -portion above 184), a wire management slot (periphery around 14) located between the base and the cover body, wherein when the cover body is in the open position, the wire management slot is exposed by a gap between the base and the cover body (as seen in figure 5), and when the cover body is in the closed position, the gap is closed so that the wire management slot is located in a sheltered space formed by the base and the cover body (as seen in figure 6) and at least one engaging post (16 and including a portion 164) and a stopper piece (including the rest of 164), wherein the at least one engaging post is connected to the base, the stopper piece (including the rest of 164) is connected to the at least one engaging post (16 and portion 164), the second wire management member (18 – above 184) is retained between the stopper piece (remainder of 164) and the base, wherein the first wire management member has a hollow portion (184), and the at least one engaging post (16 and a portion of 164) passes into the hollow portion. PNG media_image2.png 784 418 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 796 288 media_image3.png Greyscale With respect to claim 2, Nie discloses the wire management device of claim 1, further comprising a wire management structure (14) connected to the cover body, the wire management slot (periphery of 14) being formed around an outer edge of the wire management structure, wherein when the cover body is in the closed position (figure 6), the wire management structure is located in the sheltered space formed by the base (10) and the cover body (12). With respect to claim 3, Nie discloses the wire management device of claim 2, further comprising at least one engaging post and a stopper piece, wherein the at least one engaging post is connected to the base, the stopper piece is connected to the at least one engaging post, wherein the wire management structure is at least partially retained between the stopper piece and the base. (see identification of items in claim 1 above) With respect to claim 5, Nie discloses the wire management device of claim 1, wherein the first wire management member (18- 184 and below) is connected to the cover body, the second wire management member (18- above 184) is connected to the first wire management member, wherein an extending portion (body of 18, portion of the first wire management member) of the first wire management member extends in a direction away from the cover body to be connected to the second wire management member (), and the wire management slot is formed around an outer edge of the extending portion. Examiner Note: Claim 5 positively states a connection between the first wire management member and the second wire management member. The statements “connected” and “to be connected” are interpreted as stating a positive connection. Otherwise, this would be considered to contradict the language of the claims. With respect to claim 8, Nie discloses the wire management device of claim 1, wherein when the cover body moves from the closed position to the open position, the stopper piece (remainder of 164) slides relative to the wire management structure along the hollow portion (184), and when the cover body is in the open position, the stopper piece abuts against the second wire management member (18-above 184). 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. 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. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie (US 10462550 B2) in view of Kealy (US 20220297897 A1). With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for further comprising a magnetic member connected to the wire management structure, wherein when the cover body is in the closed position, the magnetic member is attracted to a magnetic metal piece, and the magnetic metal piece is embedded in the base. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely wire management structures, Kealy taught of a magnetic connection between the features in order to retain the base and cover in a closed configuration (abstract). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closure of Nie to include a magnet as taught by Kealy in order to allow for retention in the closed position. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6 and 9 is rejected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 5, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 6 has dependency from the rejected claim 5 (above). Search results for prior art in this field failed to identify wherein the second wire management member has at least one positioning hole, the base has at least one positioning protrusion, and when the cover body is in the closed position, the at least one positioning protrusion passes into the at least one positioning hole. Similarly claim 9 has dependency from the rejected claim 5 (above), as well as a 112b antecedent rejection. Search results for prior art in this field failed to wherein the first wire management member has a hollow portion, and the wire management slot surrounds the hollow portion, wherein the first wire management member comprises a first buckling member located on a sidewall of the hollow portion, the second wire management member comprises a second buckling member, and the second buckling member is buckled to the first buckling member. Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-10462550-B2 OR US-10294066-B1 OR US-8882016-B1 OR US-10906771-B2 OR US-10899577-B2 OR US-20160058144-A1 OR US-20220297897-A1 OR US-20190276268-A1 OR US-20170001769-A1 OR US-20030201358-A1 OR US-20220244478-A1 OR US-20190016553-A1 OR US-20090211860-A1 OR US-20050145739-A1 OR US-20050056443-A1 OR US-20030010862-A1 OR US-20240417212-A1 OR US-20220162037-A1 OR US-20220102949-A1 OR US-20180221654-A1 OR US-20250309629-A1 OR US-20230098936-A1 OR US-20220234863-A1 OR US-20070001046-A1 OR US-20210265828-A1 OR US-20200223657-A1 OR US-20190319411-A1 OR US-20170013343-A1 OR US-20150129702-A1 OR US-20110284676-A1 OR US-20110170724-A1. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Although the same art is used, a different reading of each art has been employed. Conclusion 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 extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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. /S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735 /ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 17, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112
Jun 25, 2026
Response Filed
Sep 01, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12745839
Portable Workstation for Writing, Drawing and Coloring
4y 4m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12718783
A GUITAR CASE
4y 9m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12714256
VENTING APPLIANCE LID
2y 4m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12710245
PROJECTILE LOADER LOCKING AND OPERATION MECHANISMS
3y 0m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12696722
WAFER CONTAINER
2y 3m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
64%
With Interview (+12.1%)
2y 9m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 167 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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