Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/776,855

RETRACTABLE TOWEL APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103§DP
Filed
Jul 18, 2024
Examiner
BARNETT, DEVIN K
Art Unit
3631
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
414 granted / 734 resolved
+4.4% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
759
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
42.5%
+2.5% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 734 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §DP
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A: Figs 6 & 14 in the reply filed on 08/28/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/28/2025. Regarding claim 10, claim 10 depends from claim 9 which is withdrawn, therefore claim 10 is withdrawn. Further, according to the applicant’s specification only unelected Species C (Figs 11 & 12) discloses a wall mountable housing that has an aperture through its center for receiving a mechanical element 50; wherein the mechanical element may be a screw or wall anchor [0041]. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,064,061 in view of Biagiotti 2014/0284439. Claims 1 and 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,064,061 claims all the limitations set forth in the instant application except for “wherein the housing is a wall mountable housing”. Biagiotti discloses a retractable towel apparatus (Figs 1 & 7) comprising a wall mountable housing (Figs 1 & 7, #10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the housing of U.S. Patent No. 12,064,061 to a wall as taught by Biagiotti because the substitution of one known mounting surface or support surface for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiang 6,467,736. Regarding claim 1, in a first interpretation, Chiang discloses an apparatus (Fig 7) that is capable of being used as a retractable towel apparatus, comprising: a plurality of retractable cord and clip modules (Figs 2 & 7, #221), each formed of: a wall mountable housing (Figs 1 & 3, #21) configured to house a retractable cord (Figs 3 & 7, #22); and a clip (annotated Fig 3 below) & (Figs 1 & 7, #221), wherein the clip (annotated Fig 3 below) & (Fig 1 & 7, #221) is coupled to the retractable cord (Figs 3 & 7, #22). PNG media_image1.png 820 1302 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, in the first interpretation, Chiang discloses the retractable towel apparatus further comprising: an adjustable bar (Fig 7, #6) configured to couple to the plurality of retractable cord and clip modules (Figs 2 & 7, #221). Regarding claim 3, in the first interpretation, Chiang discloses the retractable towel apparatus wherein the clip (annotated Fig 3 above) & (Fig 1 & 7, #221) includes a pivoting portion (annotated Fig 3 above). Regarding claim 4, in the first interpretation, Chiang discloses the retractable towel apparatus wherein the retractable cord (Figs 3 & 7, #22) is coupled to the clip (annotated Fig 3 above) & (Fig 1 & 7, #221) via mechanical elements (annotated Fig 3 below). PNG media_image2.png 777 1142 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 5, in the first interpretation, Chiang discloses the retractable towel apparatus wherein the clip (annotated Fig 3 above) & (Figs 1 & 7, #221) includes a first jaw (annotated Fig 3 above) and a second jaw (annotated Fig 3 above), wherein the first jaw (annotated Fig 3 above) is biased against the second jaw (annotated Fig 3 above). Regarding claim 1, in a second interpretation, Chiang discloses an apparatus (Fig 5) that is capable of being used as a retractable towel apparatus, comprising: a plurality of retractable cord and clip modules (Figs 1 & 2, #221), each formed of: a wall mountable housing (Figs 1 & 3, #21) configured to house a retractable cord (Figs 3 & 5, #22); and a clip (annotated Fig 3 below) & (Figs 1 & 2, #221), wherein the clip (annotated Fig 3 below) & (Fig 1 & 2, #221) is coupled to the retractable cord (Figs 3 & 5, #22). PNG media_image1.png 820 1302 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, in the second interpretation, Chiang discloses the retractable towel apparatus further comprising: an adjustable bar (Fig 5, #52) configured to couple to the plurality of retractable cord and clip modules (Figs 2 & 3, #221). Regarding claim 3, in the second interpretation, Chiang discloses the retractable towel apparatus wherein the clip (annotated Fig 3 above) & (Fig 1 & 3, #221) includes a pivoting portion (annotated Fig 3 above). Regarding claim 4, in the second interpretation, Chiang discloses the retractable towel apparatus wherein the retractable cord (Figs 3 & 5, #22) is coupled to the clip (annotated Fig 3 above) & (Fig 1 & 2, #221) via mechanical elements (annotated Fig 3 below). PNG media_image2.png 777 1142 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 5, in the second interpretation, Chiang discloses the retractable towel apparatus wherein the clip (annotated Fig 3 above) & (Figs 1 & 2, #221) includes a first jaw (annotated Fig 3 above) and a second jaw (annotated Fig 3 above), wherein the first jaw (annotated Fig 3 above) is biased against the second jaw (annotated Fig 3 above). 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. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang 6,467,736. Regarding claim 6, Chiang discloses the retractable towel apparatus wherein the first jaw (annotated Fig 3 above) is biased against the second jaw (annotated Fig 3 above) using a spring clip (annotated Fig 3 above) (as shown in Fig 3). Chiang has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach the retractable towel apparatus wherein the first jaw is biased against the second jaw using a tension spring. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bias the first jaw (Chiang, annotated Fig 3 above) is biased against the second jaw (Chiang, annotated Fig 3 above) using a tension spring since it is old and well known in the art for standard spring clips such as the clips (Chiang, annotated Fig 3 above) of Chiang to be made using tension springs. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang 6,467,736 in view of Phillips 10,959,508. Regarding claim 7, Chiang has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second jaw each include a row of retaining teeth. Phillips discloses a clip (Fig 2) that includes a first jaw (Fig 2, #14) and a second jaw (Fig 2, #16), wherein the first jaw (Fig 2, #14) is biased against the second jaw (Fig 2, #16); wherein the first (Fig 2, #14) and the second jaw (Fig 2, #16) each include a row of retaining teeth (Fig 1, #38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace each clip (Chiang, annotated Fig 3 above) of Chiang with the clip (Phillips, Fig 2) of Phillips because the substitution of one known clip for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Further, the clip (Phillip, Fig 2) will enable Chiang to support heavier objects. 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 DEVIN K BARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7:30pm. 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 571-272-8227. 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. /DEVIN K BARNETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 18, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599273
Bouncing Core Device, Detachable Connecting Device, and Paper Towel Rack
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600610
DUAL PROPANE CYLINDER ATTACHMENT FOR FORKLIFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12575676
SHELVING UNIT TIE BAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575675
WALL MOUNTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564262
OBJECT HANGING SYSTEM AND METHOD
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+27.0%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 734 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