Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/950,519

BINDING MEMBER

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Nov 18, 2024
Examiner
DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY
Art Unit
3632
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Daiwa Kasei Industry Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
982 granted / 1359 resolved
+20.3% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1392
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
33.5%
-6.5% vs TC avg
§102
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§112
30.1%
-9.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1359 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Drawings Figures 10-13 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 17, “branches into left and right” should be “branches into left and right portions”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 1 line 19, it is unclear if the “a lower surface of the buckle portion” is meant to reference the “lower-surface portion” or “lower side” of the buckle portion previously recited in claim 1, or a separate lower surface. In claim 3 it is unclear how the binding member is to be structured and arranged. It is unclear if the “two said buckle portions” is meant to include the buckle portion of claim 1. Further in claim 3 it is unclear what is being referenced as “the belt portions” as only a single belt portion is recited in claim 1. It appears that claim 3 is meant to recite a binding member according to claim 1, and further comprising a second buckle portion and a second belt portion, with the engaging portion as this is what was meant to be claimed per the examiner’s best understanding of the claimed invention. 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. (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. Claim(s) 1,2,4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wakabayashi et al.(US7316375). [claim 1] Wakabayashi teaches a binding member(20), comprising a belt portion(12) and a buckle portion(13) in an integral manner, the belt portion winding around an outer periphery of an elongated wire routing material(fig 7), the buckle portion allowing the belt portion to be inserted from a distal end of the belt portion in a belt insertion hole(24) and be fixed, wherein the buckle portion has an upper-surface portion disposed on an upper side(lower side in figure 1), a lower-surface portion disposed on a lower side(upper side in fig 1), and lateral-surface portions disposed on right and left sides of the belt insertion hole(as seen in fig 1), the lower-surface portion includes an elastic engagement piece(26) that extends from an entrance side toward an exit side of the belt insertion hole, and is supported in a cantilevered manner(fig 1) so that a distal end of the extending elastic engagement piece is a free end, and on which engagement claws(27) protruding upward are formed on the free-end side, engagement grooves(22) that engage with the engagement claws in a direction opposite to a belt insertion direction when the belt portion is inserted from the entrance side in the belt insertion hole, are continually formed on the belt portion so as to be arranged in a belt longitudinal direction(fig 2), a proximal end of the belt portion branches into right and left(12a) so as to create a cavity(21) therebetween, and the proximal end branched on both the right and the left is connected to a lower surface of the buckle portion(fig 1), and the elastic engagement piece is provided so as to extend beyond a connecting position between the belt portion and the lower surface of the buckle portion in the belt insertion direction of the belt insertion hole, and so as to enter the cavity when a portion on the free-end side is elastically deformed downward(fig 1,2). [claim 2] wherein a lowest surface of the buckle portion(upper central portion of 13) is formed so as to include and be flush with a lower surface of the elastic engagement piece(fig 1). [claim 4] wherein the lateral-surface portion has a protrusion(29) formed so as to protrude outward. 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. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mailey(US5337983). [claim 3] Wakabayashi teaches a binding member as detailed above with an engaging portion(15) for assembly into a vehicle-body side(C1 L9-11). Wakabayashi however may not teach two of said buckle portions formed so as to be arranged such that the belt insertion directions are parallel to each other, and the belt portions are formed so as to extend downward from the lower surfaces of the buckle portions, respectively, and the engaging portion being formed so as to protrude upward on a plate-shaped connecting portion that connects lateral surfaces facing each other of the two buckle portions. Mailey teaches a similar binding member, and further and embodiment(fig 5) where two buckle portions are formed on either end of a plate shaped connecting portion(112), with the belt insertion directions being parallel to each other, and an engaging portion(130) protruding upward on the plate-shaped connecting portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use a plate-shaped connecting portion, such as taught by Mailey, to join two buckle portions and two belt portions, as this would provide additional support to wire routing material supported by the binding member, as taught by Mailey. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20240359888, US9896252, US9718591, US8950713, US7753321, US7661633, US5730399. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6. 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 5712724979. 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. /BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 18, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599233
RAIL SYSTEM FOR WORKSPACE WITH MODULAR COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12565963
MOUNTING BRACKET FOR CUSTOMER PREMISE EQUIPMENT AND CUSTOMER PREMISE EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12565964
FIXING STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12568164
STAND FOR MOBILE TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12546438
ANCHOR ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
72%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+20.2%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1359 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