Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 29/940,186

CARRIAGE NUT

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 30, 2024
Examiner
UNDERWOOD, CYNTHIA R
Art Unit
2924
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Eagle Industrial Group Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
95%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 6m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 95% — above average
95%
Career Allow Rate
763 granted / 805 resolved
+34.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 6m
Avg Prosecution
2 currently pending
Career history
807
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§102
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§112
93.6%
+53.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 805 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
Detailed Action Objections Specification The Specification is objected to for the following reasons: Figure 2 is not a close-up. The description describes it as such. Figure 4 is a broken-away view. It must be described as such and the description must state which figure this was taken from. Paragraph [0013] appears to be a combination Preamble + Feature Statement + Broken line Statement and information about an embodiment not shown. It must be amended by breaking the broken line statement off so that it stands alone just above the claim. The feature statement contains information that is not about the current claim and describes with words when the drawings are the best indicator of the claim. Also, the feature statement may best be part of the Preamble and edited to be brief. The last sentence must be deleted as it is not about this claim. Only information about this claim is permitted to be described. The following order or arrangement should be observed in framing a design patent specification: (1) Preamble, stating name of the applicant, title of the design, and a brief description of the nature and intended use of the article in which the design is embodied. (2) Cross-reference to related applications. (3) Statement regarding federally sponsored research or development. (4) Description of the figure or figures of the drawing. (5) Feature description. (6) A single claim. An amended Specification is required. Drawings The drawings are objected to for the following reasons: Figure 7 is a duplicate of Figure 1. Duplicates are not permitted. Markers are required to be placed on the drawing and position where the Figures 3 and 4 drawings were taken. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. As presently disclosed, one must resort to conjecture, and cannot understand the exact appearance of the claimed design in its entirety. The claim is indefinite and nonenabling in the following ways: Figures 2 and 3 show two carriage nuts. Is the claim for a single carriage nut or two carriage nuts? If the claim is for a single carriage nut, then only the single carriage nut is permitted to be shown in solid lines. The other carriage nut must be reduced to broken lines. It is not understood why some of the descriptions describe the views as “illustrative depictions”. It is recommended that unless that has a specific meaning that the descriptions be written clearly and concisely, like the FIG. 1 description. Paragraph [0013] is not understood. What is “an illustrative example”? What is the meaning of the last sentence regarding spaces that have no boundary lines? Why is the applicant talking about a “corresponding embodiment”? Clarification of that paragraph is recommended. Figures 3 and 4 are not understood because they both lack markers on their corresponding figures showing they were taken from, respectively. 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. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. 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. When preparing new drawings in compliance with the requirement therefor, care must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121. Conclusion The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs for the reasons stated above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA R UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-7652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00. 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, Justin Jonaitis, can be reached at 571-272-6024. 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 ORANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CYNTHIA R UNDERWOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2924 3/7/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 30, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1118325
CABLE HANGER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent D1114809
Case for tablet
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent D1110328
Keyboard with tablet protective case
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent D1109743
Protective case for a tablet
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent D1109744
Protective case for a tablet
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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
95%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+3.1%)
1y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 805 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