Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/760,657

ROOF ANCHORING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 01, 2024
Examiner
BUCKLE JR, JAMES J
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
621 granted / 952 resolved
+13.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
969
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
40.7%
+0.7% vs TC avg
§102
33.4%
-6.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 952 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because: (b) Photographs.— (1) Black and white. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stanley (U.S. Patent No. 12,421,727). Regarding claim 1, Stanley discloses a roof anchoring system (100, 400, Figs. 1A-5) comprising a base (102) configured and dimensioned to affix to a bearing wall; said base operatively connected to a vertical reinforcement member (104); said vertical reinforcement member (104) configured and dimensioned to receive at least one angular adjustment member (fastener members approximate 118, Figs. 4A-4B); said at least one angular adjustment member operatively connected to a radius arm (400); and said radius arm configured and dimensioned to operatively connect to a radius bracket (100, Fig. 5). Regarding claim 3, Stanley discloses said base (102) comprises at least one aperture (108a, 108b, 110, 112, 122) configured and dimensioned to receive at least one bolt (Fig. 3A). Regarding claim 7, Stanley discloses said vertical reinforcement member (104) is operatively connected to said base (102) at a perpendicular orientation thereto (Fig. 1A). Regarding claim 8, Stanley discloses said vertical reinforcement member (104) comprises at least one guide track (118, Fig. 1A) and at least one aperture (114, Fig. 1A). Regarding claim 9, Stanley discloses said at least one guide track (118) of said vertical reinforcement member is configured and dimensioned to receive said at least one angular adjustment member (fastener approximate 118, Figs. 4A-4B). Regarding claim 10, Stanley discloses said at least one angular adjustment member is selectably positioned between a tensioned position and an un-tensioned position (Figs. 4A-4B). Regarding claim 11, Stanley discloses said at least one angular adjustment (fastener approximate 118) can move about said at least one guide track of said vertical reinforcement member when said at least one angular adjustment member is in an un-tensioned position (when unfastened Figs. 4A-4B). Regarding claim 12, Stanley discloses said at least one angular adjustment (fastener approximate 118) is restricted from moving about said at least one guide track of said vertical reinforcement member when said at least one angular adjustment member is in a tensioned position (when fastened Figs. 4A-4B). Regarding claim 13, Stanley discloses said radius arm (400) is rotatable about said at least one angular adjustment member (Fastener approximate 118) when said at least one angular adjustment member is in an un-tensioned position. Regarding claim 14, Stanley discloses said radius arm (400) is barred from rotating about said at least one angular adjustment member when said at least one angular adjustment member is in a tensioned position (Figs. 4A-4B). Regarding claim 15, Stanley discloses said radius bracket (100, on the other end of the radius arm, Fig. 5) further comprises at least one semi-circular channel (118) configured and dimensioned to allow said radius arm to connect to said radius bracket (Figs. 1A and Fig. 5). Regarding claim 16, Stanley discloses said radius bracket (100) further comprises at least one sheeting channel (108a, 108b) to allow said radius arm to connect to sheeting (approximate 500, Fig. 5). Regarding claim 17, Stanley discloses at least one wing bracket (104) configured and dimensioned to secure a rafter to sheeting. 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley (U.S. Patent No. 12,421,727). Regarding claim 2, Stanley discloses said vertical reinforcement member (104), said at least one angular adjustment member (approximate 118), said radius arm (400), and said radius bracket (100) are composed of a material, but does not specifically disclose the material as being steel. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the various bracket members to be composed of a steel material that was commonly used for its desired strength, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from using a material commonly known and used in the art. Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley (U.S. Patent No. 12,421,727) in view of Posey (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0148655). Regarding claim 4, Stanley discloses at least one threaded rod (206, Fig. 2A) configured and dimensioned to remain nestled within a bearing wall (Fig. 2A), but does disclose a turn buckle, wherein the threaded rod is configured to connect to at least one turn buckle. However, Posey teaches that it is known to have a roof anchoring system having a threaded rod (24, Figs. 1-5) configured to connect to at least one turn buckle (32) as a coupling means. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a threaded rod in conjunction with a turn buckle as a coupling means to use two adjoin two fastening means. Regarding claim 5, Posey further teaches the at least one turn buckle is configured and dimensioned to remain nestled within a bearing wall, configured and dimensioned to receive said at least one threaded rod, and configured and dimensioned to receive said at least one bolt (Fig. 1). The Examiner considered the wall to be within the parameters of the studs. Regarding claim 6, Stanley in view of Posey discloses that it would have been obvious to have said at least one threaded rod (206), said at least one turn buckle, and said at least one bolt is configured and dimensioned to affix and anchor said base (102) to a bearing wall. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J BUCKLE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm 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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 5712726754. 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. /JAMES J BUCKLE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 01, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595650
OUTDOOR TO INDOOR SWIMMING POOL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595675
INFLATABLE STABILIZED ENCLOSURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590454
SYSTEM FOR BUILDING PREFABRICATED MODULAR, SEALED, AND PRESSURIZED HABITATS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587126
SNAP-IN MOUNTING SYSTEMS FOR LAMINATE SOLAR PANELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12546106
Drywall Hanger
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
65%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+14.9%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 952 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month