Sample output

What a HandleIP delivery looks like

Excerpts from one matter: a non-final rejection with thirteen grounds, including anticipation over four references, obviousness, objections to the claims, specification and title, claims indicated allowable if rewritten, and claims allowed. The practitioner asked us to amend as little as possible.

The matter is an internal rehearsal on a public application, replayed as of its Office Action. It is not a client matter. So that the application cannot be identified, we changed the application and docket numbers, names, dates, references, paragraph, column and reference numerals, and the technical terms, and we paraphrased quotations from the cited references. The excerpts are shortened and some passages condensed; omissions are marked […]. Otherwise the wording is as produced.

The paper you file

The draft RESPONSE (extract)

The draft reply in USPTO format, ready for your edits. Below: the title amendment, part of the claim listing, part of the remarks, and the signature block left for you.

RESPONSE · delivered in Word and Markdown

Amendments to the Specification: Title

Please amend the title of the invention to read as follows:

CONNECTOR ASSEMBLY WITH RETENTION ELEMENT AND CARRIER SEAL

Amendments to the Claims

1. (Currently Amended) A connector assembly comprising: terminals, the terminals conduct electrical signals; a carrier, the carrier holds the terminals; a housing, the housing includes a retention element to attach to a mating connector; and a carrier seal between the carrier and the housing.

[… claim 2 …]

3. (Currently Amended) A connector assembly as in claim 1 further comprising a housing seal on the exterior face of the housing wherein the housing seal will engage a mounting surface.

[… claims 4-5 …]

6. (Canceled)

7. (Currently Amended) A connector assembly as in claim ~~6 wherein the~~ 1 wherein the carrier seal is made of metal.

[… claim 8 …]

9. (Currently Amended) A connector assembly as in claim [[6]] 1 further comprising a pressure plate to apply force to compress the carrier seal.

[… claims 10-20 …]

Remarks: Specification

The objection concerns reference numerals 64 and 62 in paragraph [0041]. The Preliminary Amendment of [date], at page 3, already replaced 64 with 62 in that paragraph. Reconsideration of the objection is requested on that record.

Remarks: Rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Reference C

Amended claim 1 recites “and a carrier seal between the carrier and the housing” (claim 1). Reference C, col. 5, lines 31-33, states that openings 74 in outer shell 70 may be filled with epoxy or other material to keep out debris. The Office Action identifies attachment plate 60 as the housing and body 66 as the carrier. Filling openings 74 does not supply a seal at the interface between body 66 and attachment plate 60. […] The Office Action has not shown the recited carrier seal in those teachings. Withdrawal of this rejection is requested.

Remarks: Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference D

[…] Applicant specifically traverses that finding as applied to a seal between the carrier and the housing under MPEP 2144.03(C). A general practice of placing a seal in a connector does not establish the placement of a seal between those two components. […] The asserted placement between the carrier and housing is a distinct factual proposition, not established by the stated general practice. The Office Action provides no documentary evidence for that placement, and its general harsh-environment rationale does not explain the selection of that interface. That selection in the identified connector is subject to reasonable dispute rather than instant and unquestionable demonstration. Applicant requests documentary evidence supporting the specifically traversed finding if reliance on it is maintained.

[…]

Respectfully submitted,
/[signature]/
[Name of attorney or agent]
Reg. No. [_____]
Date: [__________]
Telephone: [__________]

The cover email

The delivery email (extract)

What was done for each ground, what changed in the claims, and what needs your attention, in one read.

Email · opens with the required AI notice

Subject: [Application no.] ([docket no.]): reply to non-final Office Action [… AI notice, technology summary and list of grounds …] THE STRATEGY TAKEN Strategy: Option 1 of 3 from our strategy email, drafted as the default: no reply by the stated time. - Claim 1 (References A, B and C): AMEND. Rejections omit carrier seal. - Claims 1, 3 and 14-18 (Reference D): AMEND. Office Action concedes no carrier seal. - Claims 2, 4-8, 11 and 13 (Reference D): AMEND and ARGUE. Original claim 6 was rejected on official notice; the reply traverses that notice on carrier seal placement only. […] CLAIM CHANGES Amended: claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11 and 12. Canceled: claim 6. New: none. Totals after this reply: 19 claims, 2 independent. WARNINGS - Not read in full: Reference C (applied reference): 4% of the text read; drawing sheets opened: 5 of 27. […] - Fees: none due because of this reply. - Placeholders left in the reply: the signature block.

The reasoning

The support memo (extract)

For each ground: why the draft says what it says, what it relies on, and what else was considered. Then the risks and the decisions left to you. For your review, not for filing.

SUPPORT MEMO · one section per ground, then the overall risks

Support memo: Application [Application no.]

This draft response and its supporting materials were generated by AI. They have not been reviewed for legal substance by a registered practitioner at HandleIP; they require review by a registered practitioner before filing.

Rejection of claims 2, 4-8, 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference D

The Office Action relies on common knowledge for original claim 6’s carrier seal. Claim 6 is canceled and its language is added to claim 1. The reply specifically traverses the noticed seal location under MPEP 2144.03(C): generic sealing practice does not establish a seal between the two named components, and the stated environmental rationale does not explain that placement. It requests supporting documentary evidence. Adding claim 9 or claim 11 instead was considered; the selected amendment follows original claim 6.

Overall: risks and decisions

The principal risk is documentary evidence or reasoning establishing the disputed seal placement.
The reply does not specifically traverse the Office Action’s common-knowledge findings on claims 11 and 12. Under MPEP 2144.03(C), an untraversed finding may be treated as admitted prior art. A specific traverse of either finding remains a choice before filing.
The Office Action may not have considered the Preliminary Amendment’s change to paragraph [0041]. Presenting that paragraph’s replacement again is an option before filing.
Reference A and Reference E are applied in the Office Action but are not listed on the PTO-892.

[…]

Before drafting

The strategy email (extract)

Sent before any drafting, so you choose the approach. Each option shows its claim changes, its support, the strongest points against it with an answer to each, and its cost.

Email · reply with a number, your own changes, or “hold”

YOUR INSTRUCTION We read the instruction you sent with your request before writing these options. OPTION 1: Claim 1 amended Claims filed: Claim 1 amended to add the words of claim 6; claim 6 cancelled; other claims unchanged. Strongest point against it: There are two. First, the 2144.03 traverse says no document of record shows connector seals. But Reference E, already applied in this action, describes seals in a connector part. The answer is to argue that those seals surround a moving plunger. They are not a seal between a carrier and a housing. Claims 9-10, which the action holds allowable, stay as a fallback. [… second point, with its answer …] Why offer it: This is the default, in line with your instruction to amend as little as possible. Cost: Total claims go from 20 to 19. No excess-claim fee arises on its face. [… Options 2 and 3 …] DEFAULT If we do not hear from you by [date and time], we will draft Option 1 and send the draft to you for review. Nothing is filed without your approval. 13 strategies were considered; 10 were set aside (reasons in the record).

Every draft is AI-generated and needs your review before it is used. Our checks are not a legal review. See how drafts are checked and which matters qualify.

Send a request