Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/458,943

MANUAL OPERATED SWING ARM DOLLY

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Aug 30, 2023
Examiner
DOLAK, JAMES M
Art Unit
3613
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
514 granted / 650 resolved
+27.1% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
678
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
32.0%
-8.0% vs TC avg
§102
29.7%
-10.3% vs TC avg
§112
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 650 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 . Status of the Claims Claims 1-10 are pending herein. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/30/2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings appear to be hand drawn possibly in CAD format, and the structures claimed and their interconnections are not clearly presented. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to because the structures claimed and their interconnections are not clearly presented. Each figure appears to present a different invention; however, the disclosure does not seem to portray different embodiments. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein upon disengaging the locking mechanism, the one or more wheels roll onto the spring-loaded plunger, pushing the spring-loaded plunger downward to lock the swing arm dolly” (Claim 1/6) and “extending downward from the swing arm" (Claim 1, ln.4), “roll off of a platform of the frame and onto the spring-loaded plunger” (Claim 2) and “an anti-back” (Claim 4/7), and “a corresponding lever” (Claim 7 – unclear whether this is element 114) and “wherein the two or more wheels supporting the platform roll onto the spring-loaded plunger when the platform rotates counterclockwise” (Claim 8) must be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “its original position” is unclear and should be rewritten. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1/6, the claims recites the limitation “extending downward from the swing arm" (Claim 1, ln.4, – see above drawing objection) which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 2 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation: "roll off of a platform of the frame and onto the spring-loaded plunger" (see above drawing objection), which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. The disclosure and drawings are equally unclear regarding this limitation. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required. 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1/6, the claims recites the limitation “wherein upon disengaging the locking mechanism, the one or more wheels roll onto the spring-loaded plunger, pushing the spring-loaded plunger downward to lock the swing arm dolly" (Claim 1, ln.5-7, and similarly provided in Claim 6) which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 4 and 7 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 4 & 7, the claim recites the limitation: "an anti-back", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. The limitation should most likely be rewritten as “an anti-back stopper,” however the disclosure and drawings are equally unclear regarding this element. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 5 and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 5 & 10, the claim recites the limitation: "by applying suction", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. The disclosure and drawings are equally unclear regarding this element. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation: " wherein the two or more wheels supporting the platform roll onto the spring-loaded plunger when the platform rotates counterclockwise" (see above drawing objection), which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. The disclosure and drawings are equally unclear regarding this limitation. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required. 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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tennant (US 10,968,086 B1) [Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Tennant discloses: A swing arm dolly (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 100) comprising: a swing arm (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 103) mounted on a frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 102); a lever and locking mechanism (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 113+126) locking the swing arm to the frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-6); one or more wheels (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 108) extending downward from the swing arm (See, e.g., Fig.1-6); and a spring-loaded plunger (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 112) secured to the frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-6), wherein upon disengaging the locking mechanism, the one or more wheels roll onto the spring-loaded plunger (See, e.g., Fig.1-6), pushing the spring-loaded plunger downward to lock the swing arm dolly (See, e.g., Fig.1-6). [Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Tennant discloses: wherein the one or more wheels roll off of a platform (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 119+104+105) of the frame and onto the spring-loaded plunger (See, e.g., Fig.1-6). [Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, Tennant discloses: wherein the swing arm rotates counterclockwise about an axis at an end of the frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-6). [Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, Tennant discloses: wherein the locking mechanism comprises an anti-back (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 113+126). [Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, Tennant discloses: wherein the spring-loaded plunger locks the swing arm dolly by applying suction to prevent the swing arm dolly from moving (See, e.g., Fig.1-6). [Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, Tennant discloses: A swing arm mechanism (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 100+103) comprising: a platform (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 119+104+105) locked to a frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 102) by a locking mechanism (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 113+126), wherein the platform rotates about the frame upon disengaging the locking mechanism (See, e.g., Fig.1-6); two or more wheels (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 108) supporting the platform (See, e.g., Fig.1-6); and a spring-loaded plunger (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 112) secured to the frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-6), wherein upon disengaging the locking mechanism, the two or more wheels roll onto the spring-loaded plunger, pushing the spring-loaded plunger downward to secure the frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-6). [Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, Tennant discloses: wherein the locking mechanism comprises an anti-back and a corresponding lever to release the anti-back (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 113+126). [Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, Tennant discloses: wherein the two or more wheels supporting the platform roll onto the spring-loaded plunger when the platform rotates counterclockwise (See, e.g., Fig.1-6). [Claim 9] Regarding Claim 9, Tennant discloses: wherein pushing the platform back to its original position reengages the locking mechanism to secure the platform (See, e.g., Fig.1-6). [Claim 10] Regarding Claim 10, Tennant discloses: wherein the spring-loaded plunger secures the frame by applying suction to prevent the frame from moving (See, e.g., Fig.1-6). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday. 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, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 30, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600273
INFANT TRANSPORT SYSTEM AND ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600397
BABY STROLLER CAPABLE OF BEING PUSHED AND PULLED
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594823
VEHICLE-BODY FRONT STRUCTURE WITH SIDE FRAME SUPPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589782
SINGLE WHEELED KNUCKLE CARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583495
WHEELBARROW STABILIZER
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
79%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+18.2%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 650 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