Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 35/523,748

Upright mounting bracket

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Dec 20, 2024
Examiner
BENNETT, KAYLA MARIE
Art Unit
2924
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Rousseau Metal Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
97%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 97% — above average
97%
Career Allow Rate
174 granted / 179 resolved
+37.2% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 8m
Avg Prosecution
5 currently pending
Career history
184
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
3.6%
-36.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
§112
65.9%
+25.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 179 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
NOTIFICATION OF REFUSAL Response to Amendment The response filed on 01/22/2026 has been fully considered. The amended drawings overcome the refusals presented in the office action dated 10/22/2025. However, the amendments to the title fail to comply with the description requirement, therefore a refusal under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is presented below. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of the refusal presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.07(a) Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) The claim is FINALLY refused under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the description requirement. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). Specifically: There is no support in the original disclosure on 01/24/2025 for the words [for Furniture Component] in the title. The amended title has no antecedent basis in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes impermissible new matter. Amendments to the title, whether directed to the article in which the design is embodied or its environment, must have antecedent basis in the original disclosure and may not introduce new matter. Ex parte Strijland, 26 USPQ2d 1259 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Therefore, applicant may overcome the title deficiencies described herein by amending the title at each occurrence thereof throughout the application, except in the original oath or declaration, to a clear and descriptive title similar to: --Mounting Bracket— Specification The specification is objected to as follows: The broken line statement does not accurately or clearly describe the meaning of all broken lines. In re Blum, 153 USPQ 177 (1967). Specifically, the terms [The design lies in the shape, ornament, pattern and configuration of the article shown in the drawings] do not describe broken line portions. Therefore, the statement should be deleted. Discussion of the Merits of the Case: All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below. Telephonic or In Person Interviews A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner). The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, may be used for this purpose:https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at kayla.bennett@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner’s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call. Email Communications The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information. When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence When responding to an official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including refusals, Ex Parte Quayle, Notice of Allowances, or Notice of Abandonments, please note the following: The USPTO transacts business in writing. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by: · Online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only) · https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources · Mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450 · Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300) · Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions Conclusion The claim stands FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant's amendment necessitated the ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the “Number Search” button. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA MARIE BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-9590. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-3:00 PM EST. 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, Supervisor, Justin Jonaitis can be reached at 571-270-5150. 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. /K.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2924 /JUSTIN M JONAITIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2924
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 20, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 22, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1113424
TUBE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent D1111809
Anti-loosening Nut
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent D1108928
Fixing bracket for display panel
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent D1108929
Fixing bracket for display panel
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent D1104675
CAP REMOVAL TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
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
97%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+3.5%)
1y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 179 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