Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/931,648

MOBILE ALIGNMENT SYSTEM

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Sep 13, 2022
Examiner
MUDWILDER, MICHELLE MARIE PETERS
Art Unit
3654
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Rivian Ip Holdings LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
103 granted / 149 resolved
+17.1% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+31.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
171
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.5%
+5.5% vs TC avg
§102
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§112
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 149 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 . 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 10787349 B2 (Benz). Regarding claim 1, Benz discloses: A mobile system (figure 1), comprising: a plate (47) including a ramp (rightmost 36, figure 5) integral to a top portion of the plate, the ramp having a downward slope from a center of the plate to an outer edge of the plate; a lift assembly (10), comprising: a member (13) including a platform (46) to couple with the plate; and a column (11) that defines a channel (interior of 11 through guides 16) to receive the member, the member configured to move along the channel; and the ramp configured to wedge between a tire of a vehicle and the platform (rightmost 36 wedges between a tire of the vehicle and the right end of 46). Regarding claim 2, Benz further discloses: wherein the plate and lift assembly are configured to be transported to a vehicle in a remote area (individual tire lifts 10 are capable of being transported to a remote area), comprising: the plate including a top portion (top of 47) to support a first tire of the vehicle (figure 7); a second plate (47 on second lift 10) to couple with a second lift assembly, the second plate to support a second tire of the vehicle; a third plate (47 on third lift 10) to couple with a third lift assembly, the third plate to support a third tire of the vehicle; a fourth plate (47 on fourth lift 10) to couple with a fourth lift assembly, the fourth plate to support a fourth tire of the vehicle; and the plate, the second plate, the third plate, and the fourth plate configured to lift the vehicle from a first position (ground level) to a second position (lifted) with the plate, the second plate, the third plate, and the fourth plate defining, within 10 degrees, a horizontal plane (figures 7 and 8, vehicle is horizontal). Regarding claim 3, Benz further discloses: the plate including a disk (49) to engage the tire of the vehicle, the disk moveable within the plate; the lift assembly including a support frame (base of 10 contacting the ground/floor, not labeled, figure 1); and the lift assembly configured to move the plate and the disk along the channel and move the tire of the vehicle and the vehicle from a first position (lowered) to a second position (raised). Regarding claim 5, Benz further discloses: the lift assembly including a support frame (annotated figure 1); the support frame configured to support a wheel (of vehicle shown in figure 7) to contact a surface (top of 13); and the column (11) coupled with the support frame at a corner (annotated figure 1) of the support frame. PNG media_image1.png 553 556 media_image1.png Greyscale Figure 1 of Benz, annotated by the Examiner Regarding claim 7, Benz further discloses: the plate (47) including a disk (49) to support a tire of a vehicle, the disk moveable within the plate; and the plate and the disk configured to lift the vehicle for purposes of aligning a drive train of the vehicle (each tire can be rotated to align the drive train). Regarding claim 8, Benz further discloses: the plate including a top portion to receive a first tire of a vehicle (figure 7); a second plate (47 on second lift 10) to receive a second tire of the vehicle; a third plate (47 on third lift 10) to receive a third tire of the vehicle; and a fourth plate (47 on fourth lift 10) to receive a fourth tire of the vehicle. Regarding claim 9, Benz further discloses: the plate (47) to receive the tire of the vehicle (figure 7). Regarding claim 11, Benz further discloses: wherein the member (13) is configured to move from a first position (lowered) coupled with the column (11) to a second position (raised) coupled with the column. Regarding claim 12, Benz further discloses: wherein the system is portable (each lift 10 is movable i.e. portable). Regarding claim 13, Benz discloses: A method, comprising: providing a plate (47) including a ramp (rightmost 36, figure 5) integral to a top portion of the plate, the ramp having a downward slope from a center of the plate to an outer edge of the plate; positioning a lift assembly (10) adjacent to the plate, the lift assembly comprising a member (13) including a platform (46) to couple with the plate; moving the member along a channel (interior of 11 through guides 16) defined in a column (11); and wedging the ramp of the plate between the platform and a tire of a vehicle (rightmost 36 wedges between a tire of the vehicle and the right end of 46). Regarding claim 14, Benz further discloses: wherein the plate includes a top portion (top of 47) to support a first tire of a vehicle (figure 7), the method comprising: providing a second plate (47 on second lift 10) coupled with a second lift assembly, the second plate to support a second tire of the vehicle; providing a third plate (47 on third lift 10) coupled with a third lift assembly, the third plate to support a third tire of the vehicle; providing a fourth plate (47 on fourth lift 10) coupled with a fourth lift assembly, the fourth plate to support a fourth tire of the vehicle; and moving, via the plate, the second plate, the third plate, and the fourth plate the vehicle from a first position (ground level) to a second position (lifted) with the plate, the second plate, the third plate, and the fourth plate defining, within 10 degrees, a horizontal plane (figures 7 and 8, vehicle is horizontal). Regarding claim 15, Benz further discloses: providing a disk (49) of the plate to engage the tire of the vehicle, the disk moveable within the plate; assembling a support frame (annotated figure 1) of the lift assembly; moving, via the lift assembly, the plate and the disk along the channel; and moving, via the lift assembly, the tire of the vehicle and the vehicle from a first position (lowered) to a second position (raised). Regarding claim 17, Benz further discloses: providing a support frame (annotated figure 1) of the lift assembly and configured to support a wheel to contact a surface (figure 7); and coupling the column (11) with the support frame at a corner of the support frame (annotated figure 1). 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 4, 6, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10787349 B2 (Benz) in view of US 20010050360 A1 (Barbagallo). Regarding claim 4, Benz teaches: The mobile system of claim 1, the lift assembly including a support frame (annotated figure 1) and the column (11) coupled with the support frame at a corner of the support frame (annotated figure 1). Benz does not teach first, second, and third components at right angles to each other. However, Barbagallo teaches: A mobile system, and a support frame having a first component (annotated figures 2a, 2b) coupled with a second component (annotated figures 2a, 2b) at a right angle, within 10 degrees, and the first component coupled with a third component (annotated figures 2a, 2b) at a right angle, within 10 degrees. PNG media_image2.png 576 579 media_image2.png Greyscale Figures 2a and 2b of Barbagallo, annotated by the Examiner It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to support the lift of Benz with the support frame of Barbagallo with a reasonable expectation of success for increased stability and safety of the lifting system. The support frame of Benz has a very small footprint, the support frame of Barbagallo extends outward from the column increasing stability of the lift system. Regarding claim 6, Barbagallo further teaches: comprising: the lift assembly including a support frame (first, second, and third components, annotated figure 2b); having a first component coupled with a second component and the first component coupled with a third component, wherein the first component is longer than the second component and the third component (the length of the second and third components is shown in figure 2a and the longer length of the third component is shown in figure 2b). Regarding claim 16, Benz teaches: The method of claim 13 and providing a support frame of the lift assembly (annotated figure 1) and the column (11) coupled with the support frame at a corner of the support frame (annotated figure 1). Benz does not teach first, second, and third components at right angles to each other. However, Barbagallo teaches: providing a support frame (first, second, and third components, annotated figure 2b) of the lift assembly, the support frame comprising: a first component (first component, figure 2b) to couple with a second component (second component, figure 2b) at a right angle, within 10 degrees, and the first component to couple with a third component (third component, figure 2b) at a right angle, within 10 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to support the lift of Benz with the support frame of Barbagallo with a reasonable expectation of success for increased stability and safety of the lifting system. The support frame of Benz has a very small footprint, the support frame of Barbagallo extends outward from the column increasing stability of the lift system. Regarding claim 18, Barbagallo further teaches: providing a support frame of the lift assembly configured to border the member of the lift assembly and the plate, the support frame comprising: a first component to couple with a second component and the first component to couple with a third component, wherein the first component is longer than the second component and the third component (the length of the first component relative to the second and third components is shown in figures 2a and 2b). Claims 10, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10787349 B2 (Benz) in view of US 20110000745 A1 (Good). Regarding claim 10, Benz teaches: The mobile system of claim 1, wherein: the member is configured to move from a first position (lifted position) coupled with the column to a second position (lowered position) coupled with the column. Benz is silent to the distance between the first and second positions. However, Good teaches: a lift with a lifted first position and a lowered second position, and the first position is greater than 2 feet and less than 3 feet above the second position in an operational orientation of the system (“Preferably, the raised position is approximately 24 to 30 inches above ground level in order to allow a user easy access to the side and bottom of the motorcycle frame…” paragraph [0030], lines 16-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to raise the member of Benz to a position 2-3 feet from another position as taught by Good with a reasonable expectation of success to place the vehicle in a position that is easy for a person to reach for maintenance or repair. Regarding claim 19, Benz teaches: The method of claim 13. Benz is silent to the distance of lifting of the plate and tire of the vehicle. However, Good teaches: a lift with a lifted first position and a lowered second position, lifting the vehicle greater than 2 feet and less than 3 feet (“Preferably, the raised position is approximately 24 to 30 inches above ground level in order to allow a user easy access to the side and bottom of the motorcycle frame…” paragraph [0030], lines 16-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to raise the member of Benz to a position 2-3 feet from another position as taught by Good with a reasonable expectation of success to place the vehicle in a position that is easy for a person to reach for maintenance or repair. Regarding claim 20, Benz teaches: The method of claim 13, comprising: providing a disk (49) of the plate configured to receive a tire of a vehicle, wherein the disk is moveable within the plate; lifting the disk and the vehicle; and aligning a drive train of the vehicle (disks 49 support the drive wheels, allowing rotary movement for aligning the drive train). Benz is silent to the distance of lifting of the disk and the vehicle. However, Good teaches: a lift with a lifted first position and a lowered second position, lifting the vehicle greater than 2 feet and less than 3 feet (“Preferably, the raised position is approximately 24 to 30 inches above ground level in order to allow a user easy access to the side and bottom of the motorcycle frame…” paragraph [0030], lines 16-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to raise the member of Benz to a position 2-3 feet from another position as taught by Good with a reasonable expectation of success to place the vehicle in a position that is easy for a person to reach for maintenance or repair. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed October 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 7 of the Remarks Applicant notes the changes to claims 3-6 and 15-18 to remedy the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, the Examiner agrees that these amendments are sufficient to overcome the 112(b) rejections. Regarding the argument on page 8 that Barbagallo does not disclose all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 13 the Examiner agrees; however, this argument is rendered moot as Barbagallo is only relied upon as a teaching reference for the support frame of the lift system and is not relied upon to teach the newly added limitations regarding the ramp of the plate. Regarding the argument on page 9 that De Jong does not disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, De Jong is not relied upon in the current rejection. Regarding the argument on page 9 that Kritzer does not disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, Kritzer is not relied upon in the current rejection. Regarding the argument on pages 10-11 of the Remarks that claims 10, 19 and 20 are patentable over Kritzer in view of Good, Benz is relied upon to teach the limitations missing from Kritzer in regard to claims 1 and 13 and subsequently claims 10 and 19-20. 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 MICHELLE M MUDWILDER whose telephone number is (571)272-6068. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am - 7:30 pm. 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, VICTORIA AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313)446-4858. 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. /M.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3654 /Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 13, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Oct 16, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 16, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 28, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583714
METHOD FOR CONSTRUCTING AN ELEVATOR ARRANGEMENT AND AN ELEVATOR ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12552640
DRIVE UNIT PLACEMENT AND ACCESS OPENINGS FOR A PLATFORM LIFTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546166
LADDER TROLLEY AND RELATED METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539242
APPARATUS FOR USE IN ASSISTING A PERSON WITH LIMITED MOBILITY IN ENTERING AND EXITING AN AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12528684
HIGH-STRENGTH, LAMINATED PALLET FORK TINES
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+31.5%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 149 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