Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 06, 2026
Application No. 35/526,394

Flange insert for securing

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 09, 2025
Examiner
GRAY, BENJAMIN LUCAS
Art Unit
2951
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
The Mosack Group Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
96%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 96% — above average
96%
Career Allowance Rate
84 granted / 88 resolved
+35.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
1 currently pending
Career history
89
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
§102
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§112
77.0%
+37.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 88 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Election Group II, reproductions 2.1-2.8, is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design. Election of Group I was made without traverse in the reply received 25 June 2026. Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 112 The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b), 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim is indefinite and nonenabling due to the following: Lack of Description in Reproductions The exact shape and appearance of portions of the claim cannot be ascertained in the absence of corroborating views to fully describe the three-dimensional appearance of said surface (e.g., one or more attributes such as depth, curvature, angle, placement, etc. are unknown). This makes it impossible to understand the claimed design without resorting to conjecture. The portions are noted below. PNG media_image1.png 941 1253 media_image1.png Greyscale The features within the highlighted areas are considered indefinite and nonenabling. The radial, rim-like feature and edge of the inner space where the two halves meet are understood. These portions that are understood are denoted by arrows above for clarity. It is therefore suggested that the portions considered indefinite and nonenabling be converted to broken line in every reproduction in which they appear, with any shade lines removed from within, and the specification amended to include a statement that the portions of the article depicted in broken line form no part of the claimed design. Corrected drawing sheets are required in reply to this office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the reproductions appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one reproduction is being amended. The reproduction or reproduction number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing reproduction is to be canceled, the appropriate reproduction must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining reproductions 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 reproductions. If all the reproductions 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 reproductions 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. It is strongly suggested that applicant submit a complete set of drawings with all reproductions present so that correct reproductions are included in the printed patent. When preparing new or replacement drawings, care must be exercised to avoid the introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by 35 USC § 132 and 37 CFR 1.121. The original drawing disclosure represents the claimed design. All features, elements, and lines as presented are the basis from which examination of the claim is conducted. It is critical that the original disclosure filed with the office be of the highest quality, and be the most accurate rendering of the claimed design as possible. The overall design as well as that of individual features must be rendered in such a way that no amount of conjecture is necessary in understanding the claim. New matter is anything (structure, features, elements) which was not apparent (seen) in the drawings as originally filed. It is possible for new matter to consist of the removal as well as the addition of structure, features or elements. It is possible that the removal of lines showing changes in elevation in CAD drawings, which cannot be clearly understood to be such without resorting to conjecture, may also introduce new matter. Discussion of the Merits of the Application 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”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. 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 benjamin.Gray@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 official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including a notification of refusal, please note that the USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. 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) Conclusion and Contact Information The claim stands rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Gray whose telephone number is 571-272-1167. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:00. 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 on 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. /BENJAMIN L. GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2924
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 09, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1126366
Spacer for double pipes
2y 9m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent D1124829
Hinge for refrigerator door
1y 6m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent D1121424
Bracket
1y 8m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent D1120628
Corner protector
1y 2m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent D1116798
Pole clip
1y 6m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
96%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+4.9%)
2y 1m (~1y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 88 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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