Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/401,830

VEHICLE UNDECKING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jan 02, 2024
Examiner
SNELTING, JONATHAN D
Art Unit
3652
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Gray Manufacturing Company Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
587 granted / 855 resolved
+16.7% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
873
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
36.6%
-3.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
§112
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 855 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 § 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 3, 4, and 8-22 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. Claim 3 recites “an upright support” in lines 1-2. It is not clear whether this limitation refers to the upright support(s) from claim 2 or is in addition to the upright support(s) from claim 2. Claim 3 recites “each end” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. Furthermore, it is not clear how many upright supports are required because it is not clear how many ends the main platform has. Claim 4 is dependent on indefinite claim 3. Claim 8 recites “at least two ramps and at least two main platforms” in lines 3-4. It is not clear whether this limitation refers to the ramps and the main platforms from claim 5 or is in addition to the ramps and the main platforms from claim 5. Claim 9 is dependent on indefinite claim 8. Claim 10 recites “at least two portable vehicle lifts” in lines 1-2. It is not clear whether these at least two portable vehicle lifts are in addition to the at least one portable vehicle lift from claim 1 or include the at least one portable vehicle lift from claim 1. Claim 11 recites “the tires” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 12 recites “the receiving area” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 13 recites “each end” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. Furthermore, it is not clear how many upright supports are required because it is not clear how many ends the main platform has. Claims 14 and 16 are dependent on indefinite claim 15. Claim 15 recites “at least two ramps and at least two main platforms” in lines 3-4. It is not clear whether this limitation refers to the ramps and the main platforms from claim 14 or is in addition to the ramps and the main platforms from claim 14. Claim 17 recites “the rear wheels” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 17 recites “each side” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. Furthermore, it is not clear how many lifts are required because it is not clear how many sides the towed vehicle has. Claims 18 and 20 are dependent on indefinite claim 16. Claim 19 recites “the rear wheels” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 21 recites “each side” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. Furthermore, it is not clear how many lifts are required because it is not clear how many sides the towed vehicle has. Claim 22 is dependent on indefinite claim 21. 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 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones (US 2010/0038181 A1). Consider claim 12. Jones teaches a vehicle undecking system configured to undeck a towed vehicle from a towing vehicle, said system comprising: a support assembly including at least one ramp (8a) and at least one main platform (2, 8), wherein the at least one ramp is configured to be coupled with the at least one main platform, wherein the at least one ramp includes an angled top driving surface, and wherein the at least one main platform includes a generally horizontal top driving surface (see fig. 4), wherein the at least one main platform includes a receiving space located below the top driving surface, wherein the receiving area presents an opening that extends through an entire width of the at least one main platform (see fig. 1). Consider claim 13. Jones teaches that the main platform includes an upright support (12 or 17/18) at each end of the main platform, and wherein the receiving space is located between the upright supports. Consider claim 14. Jones teaches that the support assembly includes at least two ramps (8a) and at least two main platforms (2, 8), wherein the main platforms are coupled to each other, and wherein the ramps are coupled to opposite ends of the coupled main platforms. Consider claim 15. Jones teaches that the at least two ramps and the at least two main platforms comprise a first section of the support assembly (left side in fig. 3), and wherein the support assembly comprises a second section including at least two ramps and at least two main platforms (right side in fig. 3). Consider claim 16. Jones teaches at least two portable vehicle lifts including a first lift (left 4 in fig. 3) and a second lift (right 4 in fig. 3), wherein the first lift is associated with the first section of the support assembly, and wherein the second lift is associated with the second section of the support assembly. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 are allowable. Claims 3, 4, 8-11, and 17-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The attached PTO-892 lists references which teach various vehicle lifts, ramps, and decking arrangements. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D SNELTING whose telephone number is (571)270-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:30 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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. /JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 02, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595125
AUTOMATED WAREHOUSE SYSTEM AND RETREAT MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595122
Powered industrial truck
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598947
SUBSTRATE TREATING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583671
REFUSE TRUCK WITH HELICAL PUMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577090
CONTAINER LIFTING DEVICES AND METHODS FOR LIFTING CONTAINERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
69%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+32.3%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 855 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