Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/765,695

Locking Bracket

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jul 08, 2024
Examiner
HOTCHKISS, MICHAEL WAYNE
Art Unit
3726
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
VICTAULIC COMPANY
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
249 granted / 362 resolved
-1.2% vs TC avg
Strong +52% interview lift
Without
With
+52.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
405
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
§112
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 362 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment to Claim 22 is supported by at least Figure 3A, 4A and 6 alongside previously presented Claims 23-24. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 20 and 24-30 are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 20 has been cancelled. Claim 24 has been cancelled. Claim 25 has been amended to correct the antecedent basis issue. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 20 and 24-30 are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Claim 20 has been cancelled. Claim 24 has been cancelled. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 22, 25, and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kleeb (US20060006292A1). Claim 22 Kleeb teaches in combination, an element (Corrugated pipe as described in ¶0012.) defining at least one recess (See ¶0012 “depressions on the corrugated pipe”) and a bracket (1 and 2) for mounting the element (See ¶0012) to a structure (10), the bracket comprising: a base (2) attachable to the structure (Figure 3) and defining an aperture (3) for receiving the element (¶0012); and a locking body (1) defining an opening (3) adapted to receive the element (¶0012), the locking body (1) defining an engagement surface (23) comprising at least a portion of a perimeter defining the opening (Figures 1 and 3 show that the ribs (23) form a partial circle perimeter defining the opening.), said portion of the perimeter being receivable into a recess of the at least one recess (¶0012 teaches that ribs (23) engage with the recesses (depressions in the corrugated pipe).), the engagement surface adapted to secure the element to the base (¶0012 teaches the lower part (2) has ribs (23) that engage corrugations in the pipe.), the locking body being movable between a first position wherein the opening is not aligned with the aperture (Figure 3), and a second position wherein the opening aligns with the aperture (Figure 1), such that the aperture and the engagement surface surround a first axis (Figure 1 shows the aperture and engagement surface surround a first axis (the central axis of the opening going into the page in Figure 1) when they contact one another in the second position.) and the portion of the perimeter of the engagement surface overlaps at least a portion of the aperture along an axis perpendicular to the first axis (The dictionary definition of overlap is “to extend over”. Figures 1 and 3 show a center axis (19) that extends across the page. The upper rib (23 or 24) overlaps the aperture by extending over said aperture along the center axis (19), which is perpendicular to the axis in the opening/aperture.) the engagement surface being engageable with the element when the locking body is in the second position. (¶0012 teaches the lower part (2) has ribs (23) that engage corrugations in the pipe.) Claim 25 Kleeb teaches the combination according to claim 24, wherein the radius of a portion of the opening is larger than a radius at the recess and smaller than the outer radius of the tube. (¶0012 teaches that the ribs (23), which are the analogous engagement surfaces, which engage the depressions in the corrugated tube. In this setup, the outer radius of the tube is the peaks of the corrugations, and the inner radius of the recess is the trough of the grooves. The ribs are placed into the groove, which means that they have a smaller radius than the outer radius of the tube.) Claim 27 Kleeb teaches the combination according to claim 26, wherein the element is a tube. (¶0012 describes the analogous element as a corrugated pipe, which is a tube.) Claim 28 Kleeb teaches the combination according to claim 27, wherein the aperture comprises a radius larger than an outer radius of the tube. (Figure 1 shows that the base (2) has a portion (Where the aperture is tapering to a larger size in the top right of the aperture) that has a radius that is larger than the radius of the remainder of the aperture and opening. Since this portion is larger than the remainder of the aperture or opening, which are sized to fit the tube (corrugated pipe), this portion has a larger radius that the outer radius of the tube.) Claim 29 Kleeb teaches the combination according to claim 28, wherein at least a portion of the opening has a radius smaller than the radius of the aperture. (The portion of the opening (in the locking body (1)) that has a smaller radius is the portion where the rib (23 or 24) is located. Looking to Figure 1, the area where the vertical line is drawn indicates an area where the opening (in the locking body (1)) has a smaller radius than the aperture (in the base (2)).) Claim 30 Kleeb teaches the combination according to claim 27, wherein the aperture comprises a radius larger than a radius of at least one recess of the at least one recess and smaller than an outer radius of the tube. (The analogous aperture is the part of the opening (3) that is surrounded by the portion of the rib (23) located on the base (2). ¶0012 teaches that the ribs (23), which are the analogous engagement surfaces, which engage the depressions in the corrugated tube. In this setup, the outer radius of the tube is the peaks of the corrugations, and the inner radius of the recess is the trough of the grooves. The ribs are placed into the groove, which means that they have a smaller radius than the outer radius of the tube.) Claim 31 Kleeb teaches the combination according to claim 22, wherein the opening is U-shaped. (Figure 1 shows the opening is U-shaped.) Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 07/29/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102 using Shelbi or Seo have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections using Shelbi or Seo have been withdrawn. Shelbi and Seo do not teach the newly added limitations to Claim 22. Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2025 with respect to the rejections of Claim 22 under 35 USC 102 using Kleeb have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Kleeb does not teach the newly added limitations to Claim 22, specifically that Kleed does not teach “a second position where the opening aligns with the aperture such that the aperture and the engagement surface surrounds first axis and the portion of the perimeter of the engagement surface overlaps at least a portion of the aperture along an axis perpendicular to the first axis”. The rejection(s) using Kleeb have been updated to suit the newly added limitations to Claim 22. The first axis in Kleeb is through the center of the opening between the analogous base and locking body. The newly added “axis perpendicular to the first axis” in this interpretation of Kleeb is item 19, or across the page in Figure 1. The definition of the term “overlap” is to extend over as to cover partly. In Figure 1 of Kleeb, the rib (24) on the upper part (1) extends over and covers the aperture (3) along the axis (19). The axis (19) is perpendicular to the central axis through the opening/aperture. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form. Document Date Description of Relevant Subject Matter US20180072248A1 2017-08-16 Ohashi teaches a bracket comprising a base (22) configured to attach to a structure (Figure 1) and a locking element (21) that can pivot in relation to the base from a first to second position. The second position is where the two structures surround a central axis of the element (5). The locking element has ribs (not labeled), that are an engagement surface, and overlap the aperture in the base (22) when in the second position. US20100148015A1 2009-12-08 Matsuno teaches a bracket (1) comprising a base (2) and a locking element (6). The base is configured to attach to a structure (¶0033). The locking element includes engagement surfaces (27) that engage with the corrugations of the tube (¶0040) and overlap with the aperture in the base (2) when in the closed position (Figure 5). US20220123538A1 2021-10-18 Anderson, Figures 9-11, teach a bracket consisting of first (126) and second (128) mounting arms that are analogous base and locking element. The base (126) is configured to attach to a structure (Figure 7) and defines an aperture (154). The locking body (128) defines an opening (156) and has an engagement surface (the inner surface of the opening) that is receivable into the recess between the two nuts (Figure 7, Items 142 and 144). The locking body and base have a first position where the openings are not aligned, and a second position (shown in Figure 7) where the opening are aligned. Figure 9 shows the engagement surface (inner surface of Item 156) overlaps a portion of the aperture (154) in the base. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600. 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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. /MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 08, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Jul 29, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Nov 26, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12585039
System and Method for UXO Detection
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569920
Downforce Indicator Device Having a Tool Receptacle
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570199
Cylindrical Cargo Container Construction
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565332
METHOD AND MOUNTING SYSTEM FOR MOUNTING A PROFILE COMPONENT ON AN AIRCRAFT STRUCTURAL COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558819
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CREATING ADDITIVE PARTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
69%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+52.4%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 362 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