Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/909,961

SUPPORT BASE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 09, 2024
Examiner
GARFT, CHRISTOPHER
Art Unit
3632
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Gemtek Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
818 granted / 1392 resolved
+6.8% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
73 currently pending
Career history
1465
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
25.1%
-14.9% vs TC avg
§112
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1392 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 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the other side” in Line 3 should read “the other end” since claim 1 establishes the other end of the supporting part in Line 4. Appropriate correction is required. 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)(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 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being (a)(2) by Kim US 2025/0133671 (hereinafter Kim). Re. Cl. 1, Kim discloses: A support base (100, Fig. 2), comprising: a support frame (100) having a bottom plate part (110b, Fig. 5 or 30b, Fig. 11), a supporting part (120, Fig. 5 or 40, Fig. 11) and a bearing part (120 and 130, Fig. 5 or 20, Fig. 11), wherein one side of the supporting part extends upwardly from one side of the bottom plate part and one side of the bearing part extends from the other end of the supporting part in a direction away from the bottom plate part (see Fig. 5 and 11); and a support bottom plate (110a, Fig. 5 or 30a, Fig. 11), wherein a lateral side of the support bottom plate is assembled with one side of the bottom plate part (see Fig. 5 or 11), the support bottom plate and the bottom plate part form a common bottom surface (see Fig. 5 or 11), the other lateral side of the support bottom plate extends in the direction away from the bottom plate part, and the bearing part is vertically projected on the support bottom plate (see Fig. 5 or 11). Re. Cl. 14, Kim discloses: the bearing part comprises a first bearing part (120, Fig. 5) and a second bearing part (130, Fig. 5), one side of the first bearing part extends outwardly and horizontally from the other side of the supporting part, and one side of the second bearing part extends upwardly from the other side of the first bearing part (see Fig. 5). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 2-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chang US 2007/0170337 (hereinafter Chang). Re. Cl. 2-3 and 6, Kim does not disclose the bottom plate part has a first main body and a first assembling structure, the first assembling structure is disposed on a bottom of the first main body, the support bottom plate has a second main body and a second assembling structure, the second assembling structure is disposed on one side of the second main body, and the second assembling structure and the first assembling structure are assembled with each other (Cl. 2), the first assembling structure comprises a plurality of fixing brackets disposed on the bottom of the first main body, the second assembling structure comprises a plurality of plug connectors, and the plurality of plug connectors extend outwardly from one lateral side of the second main body, one end of each of the plurality of plug connectors is insertable into each of the plurality of fixing brackets (Cl. 3) or the second assembling structure comprises a plurality of first lock fixing parts, the plurality of plug connectors have a plurality of lock fixing holes, the first main body has a plurality of inner lock fixing holes, and the plurality of first lock fixing parts are insertable into the plurality of lock fixing holes of the plurality of plug connectors and the plurality of inner lock fixing holes of the first main body (Cl. 6). Chang discloses a support base (Fig. 1) which is comprised of a bottom plate part (left plate 2, Fig. 2) and a support bottom plate (right plate 2, Fig. 2), wherein the bottom plate part has a first main body (26, Fig. 2) and a first assembling structure (27s, Fig. 2 and spaces between them), the first assembling structure is disposed on a bottom of the first main body (see Fig. 2), the support bottom plate has a second main body (see 26 of right plate 2, Fig. 2) and a second assembling structure (27s and spaces between them, Fig. 2), the second assembling structure is disposed on one side of the second main body (see Fig. 2), and the second assembling structure and the first assembling structure are assembled with each other (see Fig. 1-3); the first assembling structure comprises a plurality of fixing brackets disposed on the bottom of the first main body (see Fig. 2-4, brackets between 27s with holes 24 in them), the second assembling structure comprises a plurality of plug connectors (see 27s, Fig. 2), and the plurality of plug connectors extend outwardly from one lateral side of the second main body, one end of each of the plurality of plug connectors is insertable into each of the plurality of fixing brackets (see Fig. 3); the second assembling structure comprises a plurality of first lock fixing parts (see screws 32, Fig. 6), the plurality of plug connectors have a plurality of lock fixing holes (see 24, Fig. 1-3), the first main body has a plurality of inner lock fixing holes (see 24s, in 2, Fig. 1-2), and the plurality of first lock fixing parts are insertable into the plurality of lock fixing holes of the plurality of plug connectors and the plurality of inner lock fixing holes of the first main body (see Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kim device to have its bottom plate part and support bottom plate attached to one another as disclosed by Chang with reasonable expectation of success to provide a removable connection which can be used to disassemble the device for more compact storage. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lu US 9042092 (hereinafter Lu). Re. Cl. 17, Kim does not disclose a hook component having two hooks, the second bearing part of the bearing part has two hook holes, and the two hooks are assembled into the two hook holes. Lu discloses a support base (54, 60, Fig. 1) having a bearing part (56, Fig. 1) which functions to secure to a monitor (52), which has a first bearing part (portion of 60 which attaches to 54, Fig. 5) and a second bearing part (60, Fig. 5) and further comprising a hook component (58, Fig. 5) having two hooks (585, Fig. 5), the second bearing part of the bearing part has two hook holes (601, Fig. 2), and the two hooks are assembled into the two hook holes (see Fig. 3). It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bearing part of Kim to include the structure of Lu with reasonable expectation of success since Lu states that such a modification enables for quick release (Col. 3, Lines 45-50). Such a modification would enable the user to detach the stand for an easier disassembly. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chang as applied to claims 2-3 and 6 above, and further in view of Moseley US 5358208 (hereinafter Moseley). Re. Cl. 20, Kim discloses the use of seat legs disposed on the support frame and support bottom plate (see 113 and 114, Fig. 5) but does not disclose two first seat legs disposed on the first main body which is far away from two corners on the two lateral sides of the support bottom plate, the support bottom plate comprises two second seat legs disposed on the second main body which is far away from the two lateral sides of the bottom plate part, and a height of each first seat leg and that of each second seat leg is the same. Moseley discloses a support base (10) which includes a support frame (left half of 22, Fig. 2) and a support bottom plate (right half of 22, Fig. 2), the support frame comprises two first seat legs (38 on the left side of 22, Fig. 2; Col. 3, Lines 17-20, disclosing one on each corner, thus having two on the left side of 22 ) disposed on the first main body, the support bottom plate comprises two second seat legs (38 on the right side of 22, Fig. 2; Col. 3, Lines 17-20, disclosing one on each corner, thus having two on the right side of 22 ) disposed on the second main body (see Fig. 2), and a height of each first seat leg and that of each second seat leg is the same (see Fig. 2). Re. Cl. 20, specifically referring to the limitations “which is far away from two corners on the two lateral sides of the support bottom plate” and “which is far away from the two lateral sides of the bottom plate part,” it is the Examiner’s position that the proposed modification would place the legs in the four corners of the entire base (comprised of both 110a, 110b or 30a, 30b) and thus be positioned as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kim device to include the legs of Moseley with reasonable expectation of success since Mosely states that such a modification both cushions the surface of desk and device and also frictionally engages the desk (Col. 3, Lines 17-20). Such a modification would prevent the support base from slipping on a supporting surface. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-5, 7-13, 15-16 and 18-19 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zaharakis US 2012/0145835, Vlaar US 2023/0200529, Shida US 2004/0061036, Landry US 5397081 and Hsu US 2009/0166500 disclose other known support bases which are presented to the Applicant for their consideration. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.. 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. /CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 09, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601446
BRAKING SYSTEM FOR HOLDING A SCREEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599189
HELMET CAMERA SYSTEM, FASTENING DEVICE, HELMET SYSTEM, AND CAMERA SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590667
HEIGHT ADJUSTABLE HOLDER FOR A MULTIPLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12573981
TRESTLE BASE AND TRESTLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565985
LIGHT HOOK
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
59%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+22.8%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1392 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