Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/891,653

Torsion Clip

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 20, 2024
Examiner
SULLIVAN, MATTHEW J
Art Unit
3677
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Illinois Tool Works Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
670 granted / 1064 resolved
+11.0% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
1106
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.4%
+6.4% vs TC avg
§102
30.9%
-9.1% vs TC avg
§112
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1064 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 . Claim Objections Claim 9 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot set forth two different features alternatively depending from two different previous claims. This would amount to two completely different claims set forth in a single claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the Claim 9 not been further treated on the merits. 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buillas, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0073089. Regarding Claim 1, Buillas teaches: A latch (5) rotatable between an engaged position (fig. 8) and a disengaged position (fig. 7), wherein the latch is biased towards the engaged position (see element 14, figs. 14-16), the latch comprising four gripping surfaces (12/20, 51/32) arranged in two opposing pairs (see pair sets 12/20 and 51/32), the two opposing pairs arranged perpendicular to one another (figs. 2-3); and at least one stop arranged in opposition to the gripping surfaces (see below). PNG media_image1.png 316 537 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 2, Buillas teaches: At least one resilient skirt (14) or resilient leg arranged in opposition to the gripping surfaces. Regarding Claim 3, Buillas teaches: The at least one resilient skirt or resilient leg is arranged at least partially on the at least one stop (see 14 and see drawing selection above). Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ooki, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0124792. Regarding Claim 1, Ooki teaches: a latch (2) rotatable between an engaged position (fig. 6) and a disengaged position (fig. 7), wherein the latch is biased towards the engaged position (see figs. 6-7, 14-15), the latch comprising four gripping surfaces (5, 5, 5, 5) arranged in two opposing pairs (see figs. 6-7), the two opposing pairs arranged perpendicular to one another; and at least one stop (1) arranged in opposition to the gripping surfaces. Regarding Claim 4, Ooki teaches: Wherein at least one of the four gripping surfaces is ramped such that a ramp (see 5c) reaches a maximum height towards a center of the two opposing pairs (see figs. 14-15, note the perspective is inverted). Regarding Claim 5, Ooki teaches: Wherein each of the four gripping surfaces is ramped (see 5, 5, 5, 5, and 5c, 5c, 5c, 5c). Regarding Claim 6, Ooki teaches: Wherein the latch comprises a ridge (see 5b), wherein the ridge reaches a maximum height towards the four gripping surfaces (see figs. 14-15, note the perspective is inverted). Claim(s) 1 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leidig, U.S. Patent 12,110,917. Regarding Claim 1, Leidig teaches: A latch (1) rotatable between an engaged position (fig. 9) and a disengaged position (fig. 7, 8), wherein the latch is biased towards the engaged position (fig. 6, elements 38-40), the latch comprising four gripping surfaces (7, 7, 48, 48) arranged in two opposing pairs, the two opposing pairs arranged perpendicular to one another (see fig. 2); and at least one stop (18) arranged in opposition to the gripping surfaces. Regarding Claim 7, Leidig teaches: Wherein the torsion clip further comprises an insertion nose (3). Regarding Claim 8, Leidig teaches: Wherein the torsion clip comprises a keyway (44) operable to move the latch between the engaged position and a disengaged position. Regarding Claim 9, although this claim is not officially treated on the merits, Examiner is providing a teaching from the prior art as a courtesy, as such, Leidg teaches: Wherein the keyway is located on the at least one stop (see 44 in fig. 1). Regarding Claim 10, Leidig teaches: Wherein the latch comprises a trap (36, 40) arranged to overpower or disengage the bias of the latch. 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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leidig ‘917. Regarding Claim 11, Leidig teaches: Wherein the trap comprises a finger (28, 29) arranged on the at least one stop and a well (36, 43) arranged on the latch. Leidig does not teach: Wherein the trap comprises a well arranged on the at least one stop and a finger arranged on the latch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Leidig with the locations of the finger and trap reversed because applicant has not provided any criticality for the claimed arrangement and there is no apparent advantage to the claimed arrangement and A reversal of parts is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure, In re Gazda Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leidig ‘917 as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Angellotti, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0016088. All the aspects of the instant invention are taught by the prior art, but for: Further comprising a doghouse sized to capture and house the at least one stop. Angellotti teaches: A doghouse (12) sized to capture and house the at least one stop (20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Leidig with the doghouse of Angellotti because that would protect the keyway from damage or accidental disengagement. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability. 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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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. /M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677 /JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 20, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601212
VEHICLE DOOR HINGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601211
Hinge for a Flap of a Motor Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599232
FURNITURE BODY HAVING A FRONT PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601213
ARRANGEMENTS FOR CLOSING ACCESS MEMBER, AND ACCESS MEMBER SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590483
GUIDE DEVICE FOR GUIDING A FURNITURE PART
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
63%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+22.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1064 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