Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/455,831

INSTALLERS VAN

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 25, 2023
Examiner
MORROW, JASON S
Art Unit
3612
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
1166 granted / 1385 resolved
+32.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1420
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
33.3%
-6.7% vs TC avg
§102
34.4%
-5.6% vs TC avg
§112
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1385 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 § 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 1-20 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. In claim 1, lines 4 and 5, and claim 16, lines 4 and 5, the phrase “the interior of the van is designed to house all of the tools needed to install the windows” is indefinite. The scope of the claim is unascertainable since it is unclear exactly what tools are “needed” to install windows. Some windows or applications may require specific tools that others may not. Additionally, some tools may make the installation easier, but aren’t necessarily needed. In claim 2, lines 1 and 2, the phrase, “The van of claim 1 wherein a metal brake for cutting, bending, and finishing commonly used siding” is indefinite. Applicant does not positively recite a relationship between the metal brake and the van and thus that relationship is indefinite. In claim 4, lines 1 and 2, applicant claims, “wood racks are secured to the studs and braces on the opposite interior wall from the metal brake”. However, the claims only inferentially recite the metal brake is associated with an interior wall. There are no limitations detailing how the metal brake is attached or positioned with respect to an interior wall. A similar problem appears in claim 6. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the bottom of the metal brake" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the bottom of the metal brake" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claims 5-15 and 17-20, applicant repeatedly uses the term “can be mounted”. This appears to make the structure which “can be mounted” optional. However, some of the claims define further structures in relation to the optionally mounted equipment thus making it unclear is the structures in relation to the optionally mounted structures are also optional. For example, in claim 8, applicant claims “a dust collection vent and piping is connected to the miter saw”. The miter saw is claimed as being optional in claim 7 from which claim 8 depends. Thus, it is unclear if the dust collection vent and piping is also optional. For purposes of examination below, all structures defined in relation to optionally claimed structures are treated as also being optional. Applicant should distinctly claim what is required to be part of the claimed invention and that which is not. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cargo Van (https://adventurevans.com/cargo_vans). Re claim 1, Cargo Van discloses a van outfitted to carry all the tools necessary for installing windows and doors (as shown in the four photos, the van has a large cargo space which is capable of carrying a large amount of tools, including whatever is necessary to install windows and doors), the van includes a side opening door (the photos show a side door) and a rear door (the rear door is shown in the photos) to provide access to an interior of the van, the interior of the van is designed to house all of the tools needed to install the windows and doors (as shown in the four photos, the van has a large cargo space which is capable of carrying a large amount of tools, including whatever is necessary to install windows and door), and on opposite interior walls of the van, there are a plurality of studs and interconnecting braces to mount various tools (see the annotated figure below). PNG media_image1.png 892 935 media_image1.png Greyscale 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 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cargo Van (https://adventurevans.com/cargo_vans) in view of Packout (Packout Hangout & Organization Nation). Re claims 2 and 3, Cargo Van discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for a metal brake for cutting, bending and finishing commonly used siding. Packout teaches using a metal brake for cutting, bending, and finishing commonly used siding in a vehicle, where the commonly used siding is aluminum sheet metal. See the annotated figure below which shows a metal brake that is capable of cutting, bending, and finishing aluminum sheet metal. PNG media_image2.png 983 776 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a van, such as that disclosed by Cargo Van, to have a metal brake for cutting, bending and finishing commonly used siding, where the commonly used siding is aluminum sheet metal, as taught by Packout, in order to furnish the van with a tool that is commonly needed at a jobsite. Packout is specifically directed window installation and the tools that are needed to complete jobs at a jobsite. Re claim 4, Cargo Van further discloses wood racks are secured the studs and braces on the opposite interior wall from the metal brake. See the annotated figure below. The structures identified as wood racks are capable of restraining wood placed behind them. Additionally, whatever wall the metal brake is placed against, there is at least one rack on the other side of the vehicle opposite from the metal brake. PNG media_image3.png 643 823 media_image3.png Greyscale Re claim 5, a cutting table can be mounted to the studs and braces by folding supports. The claim only requires that a cutting table CAN be mounted to the studs and braces by folding supports. Accordingly, since a cutting table CAN be mounted to the studs and braces by folding parts, the structure shown by Cargo Van meets the functional limitations of the claim. Re claim 6, the cutting table is mounted on the opposite interior wall from the metal brake. The claim only requires that a cutting table CAN be mounted to the studs and braces by folding supports. Accordingly, since a cutting table CAN be mounted to the studs and braces by folding parts, the structure shown by Cargo Van meets the functional limitations of the claim. Re claim 7, a miter saw used to make accurate cross cuts and miters in a strip of wood or metal can be mounted on the interior wall adjacent the cutting table. The claim only requires that a miter saw CAN be mounted on the interior wall adjacent the cutting table. Accordingly, since a cutting table CAN be mounted to the studs and braces by folding parts, the structure shown by Cargo Van meets the functional limitations of the claim. Re claim 8, a dust collection vent and piping connected to the miter saw is capable of being housed in the vehicle. The claim only requires that a miter saw CAN be mounted on the interior wall adjacent the cutting table. Accordingly, since a cutting table CAN be mounted to the studs and braces by folding parts, the structure shown by Cargo Van meets the functional limitations of the claim. Since the dust collection vent and piping is defined relation to the optional miter saw, Cargo Van meets the claim limitation because it is capable of housing the claimed structure. Re claim 9, Cargo Van discloses that a dust collection vent and piping connect to a dust collector with a collection bag is capable of being housed in the vehicle. The claim only requires that a miter saw CAN be mounted on the interior wall adjacent the cutting table. Accordingly, since a cutting table CAN be mounted to the studs and braces by folding parts, the structure shown by Cargo Van meets the functional limitations of the claim because it is capable of housing the claimed structure. Re claim 10, Cargo Van discloses a table saw is capable of being disposed below the dust collector with a collection bag so that the dust from the table saw can be collected in the collection bag. Since the dust collector with a collection bag also appears to be optional, the table saw must also be optional as it is claimed in relation to the miter saw and cutting table. Re claim 11, Cargo Van discloses a power extension cord can be mounted above the table saw. As noted above the Cargo Van is capable of housing such a structure and thus meets the claim limitations. Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cargo Van (https://adventurevans.com/cargo_vans) in view of Packout (Packout Hangout & Organization Nation) and Chang (US 2016/0031054). Re claim 16, Cargo Van discloses a van outfitted to carry all the tools necessary for installing windows and doors (as shown in the four photos, the van has a large cargo space which is capable of carrying a large amount of tools, including whatever is necessary to install windows and doors), the van includes a side opening door (the photos show a side door) and a rear door (the photos show a rear door) to provide access to an interior of the van, the interior of the van is designed to house all of the tools needed to install the windows and doors (as shown in the four photos, the van has a large cargo space which is capable of carrying a large amount of tools, including whatever is necessary to install windows and doors), on opposite interior walls of the van, there are a plurality of studs and interconnecting braces to mount various tools. PNG media_image1.png 892 935 media_image1.png Greyscale Cargo Van does not disclose a metal brake for cutting, bending and finishing sheet siding or a dust collection vent and piping connected to a dust collector with a collection bag. Packout teaches using a metal brake for cutting, bending, and finishing commonly used siding in a vehicle, where the commonly used siding is aluminum sheet metal. See the annotated figure below which shows a metal brake that is capable of cutting, bending, and finishing aluminum sheet metal. PNG media_image2.png 983 776 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a van, such as that disclosed by Cargo Van, to have a metal brake for cutting, bending and finishing commonly used siding, where the commonly used siding is aluminum sheet metal, as taught by Packout, in order to furnish the van with a tool that is commonly needed at a jobsite. Packout is specifically directed window installation and the tools that are needed to complete jobs at a jobsite. Chang teaches dust collection vent (the hole at the end of the conduit 5 in figure 1) and piping (conduit 5) connected to a dust collector (100, figure 1) with a collection bag (72, figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a van, such as that disclosed by the combination of Cargo Van and Packout above, to have a dust collection vent and piping connected to a dust collector with a collection bag, as taught by Chang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide for safe operation of tools within the vehicle that create dust. Re claim 17, Cargo Van further discloses a cutting table can be mounted to the studs and braces by folding supports. The claim only requires that a cutting table CAN be mounted to the studs and braces by folding supports. Accordingly, since a cutting table CAN be mounted to the studs and braces by folding parts, the structure shown by Cargo Van meets the functional limitations of the claim Re claim 18, Cargo Van further discloses a miter saw used to make accurate cross cuts and miters in a strip of wood or metal can be mounted on the interior wall adjacent the cutting table. The claim only requires that a miter saw CAN be mounted on the interior wall adjacent the cutting table. Accordingly, since a cutting table CAN be mounted to the studs and braces by folding parts, the structure shown by Cargo Van meets the functional limitations of the claim. Re claim 19, Cargo Van further discloses a dust collection vent and piping is connected to the miter saw is capable of being housed in the vehicle. The claim only requires that a miter saw CAN be mounted on the interior wall adjacent the cutting table. Since the dust collection vent and piping is defined relation to the optional miter saw, Cargo Van meets the claim limitation because it is capable of housing the claimed structure. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 12-15 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references all disclose vehicle arrangements. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason S Morrow whose telephone number is (571)272-6663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.. 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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (517) 272-5109. 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. /JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 March 5, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 25, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595002
VEHICLE CROSSMEMBER, VEHICLE COMPRISING SUCH A VEHICLE CROSSMEMBER, AND SET OF VEHICLE CROSSMEMBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590484
WIRE ROPE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584340
PANEL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584344
MOTORIZED COVERING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583295
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A VEHICLE ENCLOSURE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
84%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+10.8%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1385 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month