Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/931,079

FASTENING DEVICE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Oct 30, 2024
Examiner
MERCADO, LOUIS A
Art Unit
3677
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
529 granted / 666 resolved
+27.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
709
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§102
44.8%
+4.8% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 666 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 . This is a final Office action responsive to the reply filed on 12/19/2025. Claims 1-6 are pending. Amended specification was filed for entry. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cotterman et al. (US Patent No. 9,770,070 cited by applicant). Regarding claim 1, Cotterman et al. discloses a fastening device, comprising: a case unit, comprising: a wall forming a receiving space and comprising an inner protrusion (see annotated Figs. 11A and 11K); an upper opening communicated with the receiving space (see annotated Fig. 11A); a lower opening opposite to the upper opening and communicated with the receiving space (see annotated Fig. 11A); and a base detachably connected to the wall (see annotated Fig. 11A); and a spool within the receiving space and comprising an upper ring portion and a lower ring portion (see annotated Figs. 11A and 11K); wherein the inner protrusion is adjacent to the lower opening, and as the spool is inserted upward into the receiving space, the upper ring portion is located above the inner protrusion, the lower ring portion is restricted by the inner protrusion, and the spool is prohibited from leaving from the upper opening (see annotated Figs. 11A and 11K). Regarding claim 2, Cotterman et al. discloses, wherein the lower ring portion comprises a first flange and a second flange, the second flange is located below the first flange, and as the base and the wall are combined, the inner protrusion is located on the second flange (see annotated Figs. 11A and 11K). Regarding claim 3, Cotterman et al. further discloses, comprising: a knob covering the case unit (see annotated Fig. 11A); and an engaging unit located above the spool, the engaging unit coupled to the knob and comprising a first driving portion (see annotated Figs. 11A and 11K); wherein the spool comprises a second driving portion corresponding to the first driving portion, an operation of the knob causes movement of the engaging unit along an axial direction, when the engaging unit is in a low position, the first driving portion is engaged with the second driving portion and the engaging unit corresponds to a plurality of teeth at the wall such that the engaging unit is engaged with at least one of the teeth to prohibit the spool from rotating in a first direction, rotation of the knob in a second direction opposite to the first direction causes the engaging unit to disengage from at least one of the teeth such that rotation of the spool in the second direction is allowed (see annotated Figs. 11A and 11K). PNG media_image1.png 708 394 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 370 633 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4, Cotterman et al. discloses, wherein when the knob is pulled upward from a first position to a second position, the engaging unit is allowed to switch from the low position to a high position, and when the engaging unit is in the high position, the engaging unit does not prohibit the spool from rotating in the first direction (see annotated Figs. 11A and 11K). Regarding claim 6, Cotterman et al. further discloses, comprising two arms and two limiting protrusions, wherein the two arms are symmetrically disposed at a main body of the engaging unit or an inner top of the knob, the two arms protrude downward, each of the limiting protrusions is located at a distal end of each of the arms, the spool further comprises a central through hole, the central through hole is configured for the two arms and the two limiting protrusions to insert therethrough, and when the knob is switched between the first position and the second position, the two arms move along the axial direction toward the central through hole, and the two limiting protrusions are limited by the central through hole (see annotated Figs. 11A and 11K). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotterman et al. (US Patent No. 9,770,070 cited by applicant), in view of So (KR 10-1837194). Regarding claim 5, Cotterman et al. discloses the claimed invention except for at least one clamping pawl protruding downward, wherein the at least one clamping pawl is disposed at a main body of the engaging unit or an inner top of the knob, the spool further comprises an engaging portion, when the knob is in the first position, the at least one clamping pawl is coupled to the engaging portion, and when the knob is in the second position, the at least one clamping pawl is disengaged from the engaging portion. However, So teaches at least one clamping pawl (12a) protruding downward, wherein the at least one clamping pawl (12a) is disposed at a main body of the engaging unit or an inner top of the knob (1), the spool (2) further comprises an engaging portion (24a), when the knob is in the first position, the at least one clamping pawl (12a) is coupled to the engaging portion, and when the knob is in the second position, the at least one clamping pawl (12a) is disengaged from the engaging portion (24a) (see Figs. 7-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fastening device from Cotterman et al. by adding at least one clamping pawl at the inner top of the knob and an engaging portion on the spool, in order the user can lock the knob in the first position as taught by So. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-9 filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Cotterman et al. broadly discloses a wall forming a receiving space and comprising an inner protrusion (see annotated Figs. 11A and 11K). Claim 1 does not claim that the inner protrusion protrudes from the inner annular surface of the wall, and a diameter of the inner protrusion is smaller than a diameter of the inner annular surface. Applicant's arguments are more limiting than the claimed invention. Examiner’s Comment In view of applicant’s amendments to the specification submitted in the reply filed on 12/19/2025, the objections to the specification indicated in the prior Office action have been withdrawn. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LOUIS A whose telephone number is (571)270-5388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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 W. 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. /LOUIS A. MERCADO/ Examiner Art Unit 3677 /JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 30, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 19, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599246
BED SHEET RETENTION SYSTEMS, SYSTEM COMPONENTS, AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12569038
GARMENTS WITH SEMI-PRECIOUS STONE SNAPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557883
SYSTEM FOR INTERLOCKING FASTENER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12553495
CORD STOPPER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12540639
Fastening Clip
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+17.9%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 666 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