Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/939,575

SYSTEM AND APPARATUS FOR MOUNTING A FAN

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Nov 07, 2024
Examiner
HUNTER, JOHN S
Art Unit
3761
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
296 granted / 360 resolved
+12.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
385
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§103
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§102
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 360 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 Status Claims 2-21 are pending: Claims 1 are canceled Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 02/17/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Claim 2, “a cable drawn along said M-shaped cross-section of said elongated bar for supplying electrical energy to said one or more fans.” Claim 8, “wherein said channel faces said surface for concealing said cable between said elongated bar and said surface of said structure.” Claim 9, “wherein a connecting rod of said one or more connecting rods connects to said elongated bar of said plurality of elongated bars at an angle via a swivel rod” Claim 10, “a cable drawn along said M-shaped cross-section of said elongated bar for supplying electrical energy to said one or more fans, said M-shaped cross-section of said elongated bar comprises raised portions forming a channel therebetween, and wherein said channel faces said surface for concealing said cable between said elongated bar and said surface of said structure.” Claim 16, “wherein said a connecting rod of said one or more connecting rods connects to said elongated bar of said plurality of elongated bars via a swivel rod for swiveling said one or more fans at an angle” Claim 17, “drawing a cable along said M-shaped cross-section of of said elongated bar for supplying electrical energy to said one or more fans.” Claim 18, “wherein said channel faces said surface for concealing said cable between said elongated bar and said surface of said structure.” Claim 21, “a connecting rod of said one or more connecting rods to said elongated bar of said plurality of elongated bars at an angle via a swivel rod” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claims are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 L8, correct duplicate “of of” Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 2-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 2 L7-8, “a cable drawn along said M-shaped cross-section of said elongated bar for supplying electrical energy to said one or more fans.” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the instant limitation, as the support comes from newly amended matter in Para15/33/35/40 which was not in the original is NM. The office explicitly indicates that old Fig8 does not relate to the instant limitation. Claim 6 L1-2, “wherein said plurality of elongated bars is connected by one or more brackets.” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the instant limitation, as brackets 17 and equivalents where not disclosed in the original specification. Claim 7 L1-2, “wherein said one or more brackets slidably connect to said plurality of elongated bars.” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the instant limitation, as brackets 17 and equivalents where not disclosed in the original specification. Claim 8 L3-4, “wherein said channel faces said surface for concealing said cable between said elongated bar and said surface of said structure.” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the instant limitation, as the support comes from newly amended matter in Para15/33/35/40 which was not in the original is NM. The office explicitly indicates that old Fig8 does not relate to the instant limitation. Claim 9 L1-3, “wherein a connecting rod of said one or more connecting rods connects to said elongated bar of said plurality of elongated bars at an angle via a swivel rod.” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the instant limitation, as the support comes from newly amended matter in Para47 which was not in the original is NM. Claim 10 L7-11, “a cable drawn along said M-shaped cross-section of said elongated bar for supplying electrical energy to said one or more fans, said M-shaped cross-section of said elongated bar comprises raised portions forming a channel therebetween, and wherein said channel faces said surface for concealing said cable between said elongated bar and said surface of said structure.” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the instant limitation, as the support comes from newly amended matter in Para15/33/35/40 which was not in the original is NM. The office explicitly indicates that old Fig8 does not relate to the instant limitation. Claim 14 L1-2, “wherein said plurality of elongated bars is connected by one or more brackets.” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the instant limitation, as brackets 17 and equivalents where not disclosed in the original specification. Claim 15 L1-2, “wherein said one or more brackets slidably connect to said plurality of elongated bars.” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the instant limitation, as brackets 17 and equivalents where not disclosed in the original specification. Claim 16 L1-3, “wherein a connecting rod of said one or more connecting rods connects to said elongated bar of said plurality of elongated bars at an angle via a swivel rod.” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the instant limitation, as the support comes from newly amended matter in Para47 which was not in the original is NM. Claim 17 L8-9, “drawing a cable along said M-shaped cross-section of of said elongated bar for supplying electrical energy to said one or more fans.” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the instant limitation, as the support comes from newly amended matter in Para15/33/35/40 which was not in the original is NM. The office explicitly indicates that old Fig8 does not relate to the instant limitation. Claim 18 L3-4, “wherein said channel faces said surface for concealing said cable between said elongated bar and said surface of said structure.” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the instant limitation, as the support comes from newly amended matter in Para15/33/35/40 which was not in the original is NM. The office explicitly indicates that old Fig8 does not relate to the instant limitation. Claim 19 L1-2, “connecting said plurality of elongated bars is connected by one or more brackets.” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the instant limitation, as brackets 17 and equivalents where not disclosed in the original specification. Claim 20 L1-2, “slidably connecting said plurality of elongated bars using said one or more brackets.” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the instant limitation, as brackets 17 and equivalents where not disclosed in the original specification. Claim 21 L1-3, “connecting a connecting rod of said one or more connecting rods to said elongated bar of said plurality of elongated bars at an angle via a swivel rod.” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the instant limitation, as the support comes from newly amended matter in Para47 which was not in the original is NM. Claims dependent on a rejected claim are rejected based on dependency 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(s) 2-7, 9, 17, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCormick (US 5845,886), in view of Dinh (US 6,889,943) Claim 2 McCormick discloses: “An apparatus for mounting a fan, said apparatus comprising: a plurality of elongated bars (Fig1/2, bar 36), … wherein said elongated bar of said plurality of elongated bars mounts at a surface of a structure (Fig1/2, flange 47, boot 49; C4L26-34); and one or more connecting rods attached to said plurality of elongated bars (Fig1/2, arms 22 attached to bars 36), wherein said one or more connecting rods receive one or more fans (best seen Fig1, fan 10); and a cable drawn along … said elongated bar for supplying electrical energy to said one or more fans (Fig2, power cord 52 extends at least partially along direction of bar 36).” McCormick is silent to the cross-section of bars 36 being “M-shaped”. Dinh teaches (Fig2-4, channel bars 20/22 – M-shaped interface best seen in Fig3/4 on central walls 25) that it is a known in the art alternative to select channel bars with an M-shaped cross-section for a telescoping slide hanging bar mounting arrangement. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the simple substitution of the box cross-section bars of McCormick for the M-shaped cross-section channel bars of Dinh, as such a modification would merely be a simple substitution of one known in the art hanging bar channel arrangement for another, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing McCormick with an at least equally effective hanging channel bar support alternative arrangement. Claim 3 The combination of McCormick and Dinh discloses: “The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said surface comprises a wall in said structure (intended working environment, functional language. C2L37-39).” The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above. Claim 4 The combination of McCormick and Dinh discloses: “The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said surface comprises a ceiling in said structure (intended working environment, functional language. C2L37-39).” The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above. Claim 5 The combination of McCormick and Dinh discloses: “The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said plurality of elongated bars comprises telescopic bars (McCormick: Fig1, telescoping shown by movement arrows between parts 36/22; Dinh: telescoping sliding of channels 20/22 best seen in Fig1).” Claim 6 The combination of McCormick and Dinh discloses: “The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said plurality of elongated bars is connected by one or more brackets (McCormick: Fig1/2, bars 36 connected via arms 22 and plate 24; Dinh: channels 20/22 connected within bracket 102/100).” Claim 7 The combination of McCormick and Dinh discloses: “The apparatus of claim 6, wherein said one or more brackets slidably connect to said plurality of elongated bars (McCormick: Fig1/2, bars 36 slidably connected via arms 22 and plate 24; Dinh: channels 20/22 slidably connected within bracket 102/100).” Claim 9 The combination of McCormick and Dinh discloses: “The apparatus of claim 2, wherein a connecting rod of said one or more connecting rods connects to said elongated bar of said plurality of elongated bars at an angle via a swivel rod (McCormick: Fig2, swivel neck 55 of connecting rod/bracket 22/24).” Claim 17 McCormick discloses: “A method of providing an apparatus for mounting a fan, said method comprising the steps of: providing a plurality of elongated bars (Fig1/2, bar 36), … said elongated bar of said plurality of elongated bars mounting at a surface of a structure (Fig1/2, flange 47, boot 49; C4L26-34, C2L37-39); and providing one or more connecting rods attached to said plurality of elongated bars (Fig1/2, arms 22 attached to bars 36), said one or more connecting rods receiving one or more fans (best seen Fig1, fan 10); and drawing a cable along … said elongated bar for supplying electrical energy to said one or more fans (Fig2, power cord 52 extends at least partially along direction of bar 36).” McCormick is silent to the cross-section of bars 36 being “M-shaped”. Dinh teaches (Fig2-4, channel bars 20/22 – M-shaped interface best seen in Fig3/4 on central walls 25) that it is a known in the art alternative to select channel bars with an M-shaped cross-section for a telescoping slide hanging bar mounting arrangement. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the simple substitution of the box cross-section bars of McCormick for the M-shaped cross-section channel bars of Dinh, as such a modification would merely be a simple substitution of one known in the art hanging bar channel arrangement for another, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing McCormick with an at least equally effective hanging channel bar support alternative arrangement. Claim 19 The combination of McCormick and Dinh discloses: “The method of claim 17, further comprising connecting said plurality of elongated bars by one or more brackets (McCormick: Fig1/2, bars 36 connected via arms 22 and plate 24; Dinh: channels 20/22 connected within bracket 102/100).” Claim 20 The combination of McCormick and Dinh discloses: “The method of claim 17, further comprising slidably connecting said plurality of elongated bars using said one or more brackets (McCormick: Fig1/2, bars 36 slidably connected via arms 22 and plate 24; Dinh: channels 20/22 slidably connected within bracket 102/100).” Claim 21 The combination of McCormick and Dinh discloses: “The method of claim 17, further comprising connecting a connecting rod of said one or more connecting rods to said elongated bar of said plurality of elongated bars at an angle via a swivel rod (McCormick: Fig2, swivel neck 55 of connecting rod/bracket 22/24).” Claim(s) 8, 10-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCormick (US 5845,886), in view of Dinh (US 6,889,943) and in further view of Huang (US 5,603,562). Claim 8 The combination of McCormick and Dinh as applied above discloses: “The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said M-shaped cross-section of said elongated bar comprises raised portions forming a channel therebetween (Dinh: Fig4, internal channel cavities formed between channel bars 20/22), and …” The combination of McCormick and Dinh is silent the power cable being concealed within the bar as claimed. Huang teaches (Fig8/9, power cord 72, column 14; C5L17-23) that it is known and the “conventional manner” to conceal power cord 72 within the associated support rod/column 14 prior to the cord reaching a power source 74. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the combination of McCormick and Dinh to conceal the power cord within the existing channel beams of the combination of McCormick and Dinh, as Huang teaches that such an arrangement of the power cord is known and is the “conventional manner” of such an arrangement, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the combination of McCormick and Dinh with the known and “conventional manner” of arranging and concealing the power cord of the arrangement. Claim 10 McCormick discloses: “An apparatus for mounting a fan, said apparatus comprising: a plurality of elongated bars (Fig1/2, bar 36), … wherein said elongated bar of said plurality of elongated bars mounts at a surface of a structure (Fig1/2, flange 47, boot 49; C4L26-34); and one or more connecting rods attached to said plurality of elongated bars (Fig1/2, arms 22 attached to bars 36), wherein said one or more connecting rods receive one or more fans (best seen Fig1, fan 10); and a cable drawn along … said elongated bar for supplying electrical energy to said one or more fans (Fig2, power cord 52 extends at least partially along direction of bar 36), said M-shaped cross-section of said elongated bar comprises raised portions forming a channel therebetween (Dinh: Fig4, internal channel cavities formed between channel bars 20/22), and …” McCormick is silent to the cross-section of bars 36 being “M-shaped” and is silent the power cable being concealed within the bar as claimed Dinh teaches (Fig2-4, channel bars 20/22 – M-shaped interface best seen in Fig3/4 on central walls 25) that it is a known in the art alternative to select channel bars with an M-shaped cross-section for a telescoping slide hanging bar mounting arrangement. Huang teaches (Fig8/9, power cord 72, column 14; C5L17-23) that it is known and the “conventional manner” to conceal power cord 72 within the associated support rod/column 14 prior to the cord reaching a power source 74. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the simple substitution of the box cross-section bars of McCormick for the M-shaped cross-section channel bars of Dinh, as such a modification would merely be a simple substitution of one known in the art hanging bar channel arrangement for another, and to modify the arrangement to conceal the power cord within the existing channel beams of the combination of McCormick and Dinh, as Huang teaches that such an arrangement of the power cord is known and is the “conventional manner” of such an arrangement, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing McCormick with an at least equally effective hanging channel bar support alternative arrangement and with the known and “conventional manner” of arranging and concealing the power cord of the arrangement Claim 11 The modified arrangement of McCormick by the teachings of Dinh and Huang discloses: “The apparatus of claim 10, wherein said surface comprises a wall in said structure (intended working environment, functional language. C2L37-39).” The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above. Claim 12 The modified arrangement of McCormick by the teachings of Dinh and Huang discloses: “The apparatus of claim 10, wherein said surface comprises a ceiling in said structure (intended working environment, functional language. C2L37-39).” The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above. Claim 13 The modified arrangement of McCormick by the teachings of Dinh and Huang discloses: “The apparatus of claim 10, wherein said plurality of elongated bars comprises telescopic bars (McCormick: Fig1, telescoping shown by movement arrows between parts 36/22; Dinh: telescoping sliding of channels 20/22 best seen in Fig1).” Claim 14 The modified arrangement of McCormick by the teachings of Dinh and Huang discloses: “The apparatus of claim 10, wherein said plurality of elongated bars is connected by one or more brackets (McCormick: Fig1/2, bars 36 connected via arms 22 and plate 24; Dinh: channels 20/22 connected within bracket 102/100).” Claim 15 The modified arrangement of McCormick by the teachings of Dinh and Huang discloses: “The apparatus of claim 14, wherein said one or more brackets slidably connect to said plurality of elongated bars (McCormick: Fig1/2, bars 36 slidably connected via arms 22 and plate 24; Dinh: channels 20/22 slidably connected within bracket 102/100).” Claim 16 The modified arrangement of McCormick by the teachings of Dinh and Huang discloses: “The apparatus of claim 10, wherein said a connecting rod of said one or more connecting rods connects to said elongated bar of said plurality of elongated bars via a swivel rod for swiveling said one or more fans at an angle (McCormick: Fig2, swivel neck 55 of connecting rod/bracket 22/24).” Claim 18 The combination of McCormick and Dinh as applied above discloses: “The method of claim 17, further comprising providing raised portions forming a channel therebetween at said M-shaped cross-section (Dinh: Fig4, internal channel cavities formed between channel bars 20/22), …” The combination of McCormick and Dinh is silent the power cable being concealed within the bar as claimed. Huang teaches (Fig8/9, power cord 72, column 14; C5L17-23) that it is known and the “conventional manner” to conceal power cord 72 within the associated support rod/column 14 prior to the cord reaching a power source 74. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the combination of McCormick and Dinh to conceal the power cord within the existing channel beams of the combination of McCormick and Dinh, as Huang teaches that such an arrangement of the power cord is known and is the “conventional manner” of such an arrangement, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the combination of McCormick and Dinh with the known and “conventional manner” of arranging and concealing the power cord of the arrangement. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18. 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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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. /JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 07, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Apr 01, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595738
TURBINE ROW WITH DIFFUSIVE GEOMETRY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595737
TWO PIECE RETRACTABLE ENGINE CENTER BODY FOR BALANCING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595047
HYBRID PITCH BEARING FOR RIGID ROTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590547
SPLIT CASE WITH COATABLE TRANSISTION FEATURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584493
Fan Blade and Air Supply Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
82%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+12.2%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 360 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