Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/810,434

SUSPENSION RACK AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 20, 2024
Examiner
WILSON, ADRIAN S
Art Unit
2841
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Wistron Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
794 granted / 1099 resolved
+4.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
1120
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
53.5%
+13.5% vs TC avg
§102
32.0%
-8.0% vs TC avg
§112
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1099 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 have been considered for patentability. 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(s) 1, 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter (US Patent 5,788,202) in view of CN 115157300 (CN 300). In re Claim 1, Richter discloses a suspension rack, comprising: a supporting member 1 (Figure 1); a bracket 2 slidably disposed on the supporting member 1; and a linkage mechanism comprising a rotating member 8 and a pin 11 (Figure 1), wherein the rotating member 8 is rotatably disposed on the supporting member 1, and the pin 11 is pivotally connected to the rotating member 8, wherein the bracket 2 is driven to slide relative to the supporting member through the pin 11 by the rotating member 8. Richter does not explicitly disclose wherein a linking bar connects the bracket to the rotating member. However, providing such was not new in the art of mechanical actuation mechanisms at a time before the effective filing date. For example, CN 300 discloses a linking bar 2 that is pivotally connected to a rotating member 1 on one end and pivotally connected to a bracket 3 at the other end (See Figure 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of mechanical actuation mechanisms at a time before the effective filing date to have provided a linking bar connection as disclosed in CN 300 in place of the pin/slot connection as otherwise disclosed in Richter to reduce the wear and stress concentration that exist in a pin/slot direct connection. Furthermore, a linking bar connection was a well-known alternative to a direct pin/slot coupling and a person having ordinary skill would have recognized their functional equivalence. In re Claim 2, Richter discloses an elastic member 27 connected between the bracket 2 and the supporting member 1, wherein the bracket is used to resist an elastic force of the elastic member, and the bracket is driven to slide relative to the supporting member by the elastic force of the elastic member. See Figure 1. In re Claim 7, Richter as modified by CN 300 discloses wherein the bracket comprises two brackets 2, 3 (Richter, Figure 1), CN 300 discloses the linking bar comprises two linking bars 2 (CN 300 Figure 3), the two brackets are disposed at two opposite ends of the supporting member by the two linking bars, and the two brackets are driven to move away from or be close to each other relative to the supporting member through the two linking bars. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 15-20 are allowed. Claims 3 and 8 are 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. The specific limitations of “a push-push mechanism connected to the rotating member, and the rotating member is driven rotate by the push-push mechanism” in Claim 3 are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The specific limitations of "a tray and an adjusting mechanism, wherein the tray is connected to the supporting member through the adjusting mechanism, and the tray is driven to be close to or move away from the supporting member by the adjusting mechanism” in Claim 8 are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner's opinion. The specific limitations of " a suspension rack, comprising: a supporting member; a bracket slidably disposed on the supporting member and provided with a carrying portion, wherein an accommodating space is formed between the carrying portion and the supporting member, and the object is carried by the carrying portion in the accommodating space” in Claim 15 are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner's opinion. The specific limitations of "a bracket slidably disposed on the supporting member and provided with a carrying portion; a tray used to be carried by the carrying portion of the bracket; an adjusting mechanism connected between the supporting member and the tray and driving the tray to be lifted and lowered” in Claim 18 are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner's opinion. For example, Richter (US Patent 5,788,202) discloses a suspension rack, comprising: a supporting member 1 (Figure 1); a bracket 2 slidably disposed on the supporting member 1; and a linkage mechanism comprising a rotating member 8 and a pin 11 (Figure 1), wherein the rotating member 8 is rotatably disposed on the supporting member 1, and the pin 11 is pivotally connected to the rotating member 8, wherein the bracket 2 is driven to slide relative to the supporting member through the pin 11 by the rotating member 8. As noted above Richter does not explicitly disclose wherein a linking bar connects the bracket to the rotating member. CN 115157300 (CN 300) discloses a linking bar 2 that is pivotally connected to a rotating member 1 on one end and pivotally connected to a bracket 3 at the other end (See Figure 3). However, Richter and/or CN 300 fail to disclose the limitations of Claims 3 and/or 8 as recited above. Furthermore, Richter discloses the limitations of Claim 1 above, and similarly discloses those same limitations as recited in Claim 15, but the additional limitations “a suspension rack, comprising: a supporting member; a bracket slidably disposed on the supporting member and provided with a carrying portion, wherein an accommodating space is formed between the carrying portion and the supporting member, and the object is carried by the carrying portion in the accommodating space“ in Claim 15 are not disclosed in Richter, CN 300 or the other prior art of record. Similarly, Richter discloses the limitations of Claim 1 above, and similarly discloses those same limitations as recited in Claim 18, but the additional limitations “a bracket slidably disposed on the supporting member and provided with a carrying portion; a tray used to be carried by the carrying portion of the bracket; an adjusting mechanism connected between the supporting member and the tray and driving the tray to be lifted and lowered” in Claim 18 are not disclosed in Richter, CN 300 or the other prior art of record. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrian S Wilson whose telephone number is (571)270-3907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm. 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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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. /ADRIAN S WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 20, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 25, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596405
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585309
LAPTOP COMPUTER WITH QUICK-RELEASE KEYBOARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588160
POWER BOARD MODULE AND SERVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578760
ELECTRONIC APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572174
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
72%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+10.5%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1099 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