Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 06, 2026
Application No. 18/805,385

SEALABLE MOUNTING SYSTEM WITH A SLIDABLE COMPONENT MOUNT

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Aug 14, 2024
Priority
Apr 28, 2021 — provisional 63/180,745 +1 more
Examiner
MCNICHOLS, ERET C
Art Unit
3632
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Unirac Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2m
Est. Remaining
59%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
626 granted / 836 resolved
+22.9% vs TC avg
Minimal -16% lift
Without
With
+-16.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
859
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
40.1%
+0.1% vs TC avg
§102
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§112
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 836 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . DETAILED ACTION This correspondence is in response to Applicant’s Reply filed on May 28, 2026. Claims 1-20 and 33 are canceled and Claims 21-32 and 34-40 are pending. THIS ACTION HAS BEEN MADE FINAL. 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. (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. Claim(s) 28, 30-32 and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent App. No. 2016/0268958 to Wildes et al. (Wildes). PNG media_image1.png 467 713 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 488 597 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 28: Wildes discloses a mounting apparatus comprising: a base portion (See Annotated Fig. A) having a sealable surface (See Annotated Fig. A) to seal against a mounting surface when installed; a slide portion (See Annotated Fig. A) formed on the base portion, the slide portion including: a first guide rail (See Annotated Fig. A) having a first flange (See Annotated Fig. A) extending outward, and a second guide rail (See Annotated Fig. A) spaced apart from the first guide rail, the second guide rail having a second flange (See Annotated Fig. A) extending outward opposite the first flange; a through-hole (See Annotated Fig. A) located between the first guide rail and the second guide rail, and through the base portion; and a mounting bracket (See Annotated Fig. A) including a pair of opposing arms (See Annotated Fig. A) that are shaped to engage around and slide along the first flange (See Annotated Fig. A) and the second flange (See Annotated Fig. A) of the slide portion (See Annotated Fig. A). Regarding Claim 30: Wildes discloses a mounting apparatus wherein each arm of the pair of opposing arms (See Annotated Fig. A) of the mounting bracket (See Annotated Fig. A) has a U-shaped end (See Annotated Fig. B) that is slidable on the slide portion (See Annotated Fig. A). Regarding Claim 31: Wildes discloses a mounting apparatus according to claim 30, wherein the mounting bracket includes a stanchion (See Annotated Fig. A) having a plurality of notches (See Annotated Fig. A) that span across a width direction of the stanchion. Regarding Claim 32: Wildes discloses a mounting apparatus according to claim 31, wherein the stanchion includes a slot (See Annotated Fig. A) extending therethrough so as to form a gap (See Annotated Fig. A) at an end of the stanchion that is distal from the base portion. Regarding Claim 34: Wildes discloses a mounting apparatus wherein each arm of the pair of opposing arms (See Annotated Fig. A) includes a groove (See Annotated Fig. B), the groove being sized to accommodate at least one of the first guide rail (See Annotated Fig. A) or the second guide rail (See Annotated Fig. A). Regarding Claim 35: Wildes discloses a mounting apparatus comprising: a base portion (See Annotated Fig. A) including a mounting side (See Annotated Fig. A) and a sealing side (See Annotated Fig. A); a slide portion (See Annotated Fig. A) disposed on the mounting side of the base portion, the slide portion including: a first guide rail (See Annotated Fig. A) having a first flange (See Annotated Fig. A) extending outward, and a second guide rail (See Annotated Fig. A) spaced apart from the first guide rail, the second guide rail having a second flange (See Annotated Fig. A) extending outward opposite the first flange; and a through-hole (See Annotated Fig. A) located between the first guide rail and the second guide rail, and through the base portion; and a mounting bracket (See Annotated Fig. A) including a pair of opposing arms (See Annotated Fig. A) that slide along outer edges (See Annotated Fig. A) of the slide portion (See Annotated Fig. A). Regarding Claim 36: Wildes discloses a mounting apparatus according to claim 35, wherein the first guide rail (See Annotated Fig. A) and the second guide rail (See Annotated Fig. A) include a planar flange (See Annotated Fig. A), and wherein each arm (See Annotated Fig. A) of the pair opposing arms of the mounting bracket has a U-shaped end (See Annotated Fig. B) that is engageable with the respective planar flanges (See Annotated Fig. A) and slidable on the slide portion (See Annotated Fig. A). Regarding Claim 37: Wildes discloses a mounting apparatus according to claim 35, wherein the base portion includes: a port (See Annotated Fig. A) extending through a surface (See Annotated Fig. A) of the base portion adjacent to a first side of the base portion, and a vent (See Annotated Fig. A) extending through the surface of the base portion adjacent to a second side of the base portion, opposite the first side. Regarding Claim 38: Wildes discloses a mounting apparatus according to claim 35, wherein the mounting bracket (See Annotated Fig. A) further includes: a horizontal portion (See Annotated Fig. B) having the pair of opposing arms (See Annotated Fig. A) that is slidable on the slide portion (See Annotated Fig. B), and a vertical portion (See Annotated Fig. B) that extends transversely to the horizontal portion (See Annotated Fig. B). Regarding Claim 39: Wildes discloses a mounting apparatus according to claim 35, wherein the a mounting bracket (See Annotated Fig. A) further includes: a mounting portion (See Annotated Fig. B), a sliding portion (See Annotated Fig. B) having the pair of opposing arms (See Annotated Fig. A) that is slidable on the slide portion (See Annotated Fig. A), a hole (See Annotated Fig. B) located in the sliding portion, a stanchion (See Annotated Fig. A), and a set screw (See Annotated Fig. B) disposable in the hole in alignment with one of the first guide rail (See Annotated Fig. A) or the second guide rail (See Annotated Fig. A). Regarding Claim 40: Wildes discloses a mounting apparatus according to claim 39, wherein the stanchion (See Annotated Fig. A) includes a plurality of notches (See Annotated Fig. A) sized and spaced in a vertical direction along a face of the stanchion. (See generally Annotated Fig. A) Response to Amendment Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 28-32 and 34-40 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. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21-27 are allowed. Claim 29 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter None of the cited prior art, considered alone or in combination, discloses or teaches an end of the slide portion that extends outward above a perimeter of the base portion. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 8806815. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern). 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. ERET C. MCNICHOLS Primary Examiner Art Unit 3632 /ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 14, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102
May 28, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 29, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12696988
HAIRPIECE STAND
1y 8m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12694804
Bracket Structure, Sub-Display Panel Assembly and Spliced Display Apparatus
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12692637
Laundry Bulkhead
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12680325
SUPPORT SYSTEM
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673859
MATERIAL HANDLER FOR AERIAL PLATFORMS
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 07, 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
75%
Grant Probability
59%
With Interview (-16.0%)
2y 1m (~2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 836 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