Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/943,253

QUICK INSTALL TABLET SUPPORT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 11, 2024
Examiner
IJAZ, MUHAMMAD
Art Unit
3631
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Isaac Instruments Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
755 granted / 1018 resolved
+22.2% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+24.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1052
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
37.1%
-2.9% vs TC avg
§102
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§112
30.6%
-9.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1018 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 . Application Status Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are rejected herein. Information Disclosure Statement As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 11/12/2024 and reviewed by the Examiner. 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 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 pre-AIA 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. (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, 3, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weinblatt (U.S. Pat. No. 4383626). Regarding claim 1, Weinblatt teaches a tablet support to be mounted on a surface of a vehicle, comprising: a base (5, 7); straps (31, 13, 45) adapted to secure the base to the vehicle; and an articulated arm assembly (39, 43, 41) comprising a first arm (41), and a second arm (39) articulated relative to one another, with the first arm comprising a first face (face of 41 in contact with 5) and a second face (face of 41 in contact with 43), and the second arm comprising a tablet interface assembly (17, 19); wherein the articulated arm assembly is adapted to be mounted to the base either with its first face or its second face (face of 41 in contact connected to 5) against the base, and wherein, by securing the first face or the second face of the first arm to the base, the tablet interface assembly can be positioned in a first position or in a second position (folded and unfolded positions) while facing away to the base. Regarding claim 11, Weinblatt teaches a tablet support to be mounted on a surface of a vehicle, comprising: a base (5,7); straps (31, 13, 45) adapted to secure the base to the vehicle; and an arm assembly (39, 43, 41) comprising a first arm (41) and a second arm (39) that are adapted to be in a first position (extended position) in which the first arm and the second arm have a first angle greater than 45 degrees in-between, with the first arm comprising a first face (face of 41 in connected 5) and a second face (face of 41 connected to 43), and the second arm comprising a tablet interface assembly (17, 19); wherein the arm assembly is adapted to be mounted to the base either with its first face or its second face against the base, thereby adjusting position of the tablet interface assembly relative to the base. Regarding claim 3, Weinblatt teaches an interface between the first face (face of 41 connected to 5) and the base (5, 7) defines a first plane (plane along the surface of 5), and wherein the articulated arm assembly comprises an articulation axis (rotational axis defined by/at 43) around which rotates the second arm (39) that is parallel to the first plane. Regarding claim 13, Weinblatt teaches the arm assembly (39, 43, 41) is an articulated arm assembly that comprises an articulation axis (axis at 43) around which rotates the second arm (39), wherein the second arm as an end distant to the articulation axis allowing, wherein the end is adapted to be moved between a first position and a second position closer to the base than the first position (extended position and retracted position). 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 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. Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinblatt (U.S. Pat. No. 4383626) in view of Newman (U.S. Reissued Pat. No. RE47,085 E). Regarding claims 2 and 12, Weinblatt teaches the tablet support comprising straps. However, Weinblatt is silent to disclose a pad. Newman teaches a pad (Newman; Col. 10; line 16). Weinblatt and Newman are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Weinblatt having a pad such that the straps are adapted to secure the base on top of the pad, thereby having the pad wedged between the base and the surface. The motivation would have been to avoid abrasions. Claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinblatt (U.S. Pat. No. 4383626) in view of Gruber (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0214114 A1). Regarding claims 6 and 16, Weinblatt teaches the first arm is adapted to be mounted to the base. However, Weinblatt is silent to disclose the first arm secured to the base using a releasable securing means.Gruber teaches first arm (Gruber; 70) secured to the base (Gruber; 50) using a releasable securing means (Gruber; 68). Weinblatt and Gruber are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the arms of Weinblatt having the releasable securing means such that first arm is secured to the base using the releasable securing means. The motivation would have been to adjust the orientation of the supported object. Regarding claims 7 and 17, Weinblatt as modified teaches the first arm (41) is adapted to be mounted to the base (5, 7) in a plurality of positions regardless of which one of the first face and the second face of the first arm is/being mounted against the base. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinblatt (U.S. Pat. No. 4383626) in view of Cressy (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0186267 A1) Regarding claims 10 and 20, Weinblatt teaches the base. However, Weinblatt is silent to disclose a plurality of slots, wherein at least one of the straps comprise a hook adapted to be inserted in one of the slots. Cressy teaches a plurality of slots (Cressy; 4), wherein at least one of the straps comprise a hook (Cressy; 11) adapted to be inserted in one of the slots. Weinblatt and Cressy are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Weinblatt having slots such that at least one of the straps comprise the hook adapted to be inserted in one of the slots. The motivation would have been to provide appropriate grip and as well as to make the straps easily removable. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-5, 8, 9, 14-15, 18 and 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. See attached PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD IJAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am-10:00 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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. MUHAMMAD IJAZ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3631 /Muhammad Ijaz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 11, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600162
SUPPORT SYSTEM, BOARD WITH SURFACE CONFIGURED FOR WRITING AND RELATED PREPARATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595880
AUTOMATIC HOLDER WITH SUCTION CUP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590649
Strain Relief Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582852
STRAP ADJUSTER WITH TORQUE-LIMITING FUNCTIONALITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571220
A Connector For A Modular Decking System and A Modular Decking System Comprising The Same
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
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.9%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1018 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