Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/102,523

Dunnage Bag Valve Adapter

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 27, 2023
Examiner
DOUGLAS, STEVEN O
Art Unit
3612
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
AtMet Group, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
1229 granted / 1557 resolved
+26.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
1575
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
§103
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
§112
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1557 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Objections The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 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)(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. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Langston (US 5,111,838). The Langston reference discloses a dunnage bag apparatus comprising an adapter hub 10 with a valve stem 12 and contact surface 17, an adapter rim (proximate reference numeral 10 in Fig. 2) with an inflation tool contact surface (see annular flange/barb proximate reference numeral 11 in Fig. 2) and an air aperture (see aperture leading to seat 16 in Fig. 2), as claimed. In regard to claim 2, 3, 5, 12 and 13, see Fig. 2. In regard to claim 4, see coupling aperture proximate reference numeral 11 in Fig. 2. In regard to claims 8 and 9, see curved flange/barb proximate reference numeral 11 in Fig. 2 that in intended to mate with a surface (proximate reference numeral 29 in Fig. 1) of the inflation tool coupling 30. In regard to claim 14, the method as claimed would be inherent during normal use and operation of the dunnage bag apparatus, as claimed. 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. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langston (US 5,111,838) in view of Cavenagh (US 6,929,021). The Langston reference discloses a dunnage bag apparatus (supra) have a coupling 30 that utilizes a bayonet-type connector (see pin 26 and slot 23 in Figure 1), but fails to disclose the connection as utilizing a threaded. Attention is directed to the Cavenagh reference which discloses another dunnage bag apparatus that utilizes a coupling 12 that is threaded (see thread 16C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bayonet-type connector to incorporates a threaded interface as, for example, shown by Cavenagh, wherein so doing would amount to the mere substitution of one type of connection interface that would work equally as well in the apparatus of Langston. Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langston (US 5,111,838) in view of Caires (US 7,051,753). The Langston reference discloses a dunnage bag apparatus (supra), but fails to disclose the associated adapter as having a first leg (claim 10) and a second leg (claim 2). Attention is directed to the Caires reference which discloses another dunnage bag apparatus having an adapter arrangement with a valve stem 16 supported by a plurality of legs (see spider 34 defining at least a first and second leg). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the adapter of the Langston reference to incorporate a plurality of legs (i.e. a spider) to support its valve stem, wherein so doing would amount to the mere substitution of one type of valve stem support arrangement for another that would work equally as well in the apparatus of Langston. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Dupre et al., Maness et al., Langston et al., and Krier et al. references pertain to various dunnage bag arrangements with similarities to that of Applicant’s. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN O DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 5:30-4:00 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, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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. /STEVEN O DOUGLAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 27, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594872
Lockable Cargo Retaining Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594847
ELECTROMOTIVE LOCKING UNIT FOR AN ELECTRICAL CHARGING DEVICE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594871
Cargo Retaining System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588608
Mobile Forestry Machine
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589856
LIQUID RETENTION DEVICE FOR EQUIPMENT CARRIED BY A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+11.5%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1557 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