Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 17/902,542

Loading Dock with Integrated Leveler

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Sep 02, 2022
Examiner
HARTMANN, GARY S
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Leum Engineering Inc. D/B/A Dockzilla Co.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allowance Rate
907 granted / 1251 resolved
+20.5% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1296
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
75.1%
+35.1% vs TC avg
§102
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
§112
10.8%
-29.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1251 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 1-10 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. The recitation of “such sections” in line 9 of claim 1 should be “the” or “said” in order to properly establish antecedent basis. Claims 2-10 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1-4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leum et al. (U.S. Patent 11,273,999). Leum discloses a modular loading dock (2) having a mobile base (28), two opposing, adjustable leg members (not labeled, Figures 1, 4 and 5, for example), a bottom surface (32) and a top surface (30) having an opening (52). There is a dock leveler (22) configured as claimed (Figures 4-8, for example) and positioned in the opening. There is a housing (36) having a modular frame mounted to the base and including a frame-front wall (40) configured to fit a vehicle (48) and side walls (42). Regarding claims 2-4, while the feet are not discussed, Figures 4 and 5 show leg members of a type which are known to be adjustable. Also see the 103 rejection, below. Regarding claims 9 and 10, the housing is securable to a wall of a building and transportable. 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. Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leum et al. (U.S. Patent 11,273,999), as applied above, and further in view of Leum (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0347982). Leum ‘999 appears to show adjustable legs, but leaves the arrangement to one skilled in the art. Leum ‘982 teaches the structure of claims 2-8 (Figures 3-6, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the configuration of ‘982 with the dock of ‘999 in order to fit the dock with an existing structure, in accordance with the teachings of both references. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 25 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30. 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, Thomas Will can be reached at 571272-6998. 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. GARY S. HARTMANN Primary Examiner Art Unit 3671 /GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 02, 2022
Application Filed
May 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112
Sep 25, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112
Mar 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12637820
FORCED AIR SNOW REMOVAL SYSTEM
2y 4m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12630983
INTERCHANGE SYSTEM FOR A ROADWAY
4y 1m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12618201
Modular Mat System
4y 1m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12612744
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF OPERATING A VIBRATING SCREED
3y 3m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12601180
STAIRCASE WHEELCHAIR RAMP ASSEMBLY
2y 8m to grant Granted Apr 14, 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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+18.9%)
2y 4m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1251 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