Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/498,169

METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR A MODULAR VEHICLE CARGO CAVITY FRAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 31, 2023
Examiner
SHELTON, IAN BRYCE
Art Unit
3613
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
186 granted / 240 resolved
+25.5% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
268
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
47.6%
+7.6% vs TC avg
§102
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§112
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 240 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 Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 has two periods Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 11, 13, 20-21, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hanlon (US 20230024997 A1). Regarding claim 1, Hanlon discloses a vehicle cargo cavity frame (dolly frame 2/202, figs.1-3 and 5) comprising: a proximal supporting member (14, figs.1-3 and 5); a distal supporting member (24, figs.1-3 and 5); at least two longitudinal supporting members (30/32 or 230/232, figs.1-3 and 5); and a plurality of wheels (50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, figs.1-3 and 5); wherein a longitudinal distance between the proximal supporting member and the distal supporting member is adjustable to fit vehicle cargo cavities of various lengths (distance between extensions 14 and 24 is adjustable as seen in figures 1-3 and 5). Regarding claim 3, Hanlon discloses further comprising at least two transverse supporting members (14/24, figs.1-3 and 5) configured to adjust a transverse distance between the longitudinal supporting members (figs.1-3 and 5). Regarding claim 4, Hanlon discloses further comprising at least four corner supporting members (12, 16, 22, 26, figs.1-3 and 5) configured to couple the transverse supporting members to the longitudinal supporting members. Regarding claim 11, Hanlon discloses a vehicle cargo cavity frame kit (dolly frame 2/202, figs.1-3 and 5) comprising; a proximal supporting member (14, figs.1-3 and 5); a distal supporting member (24, figs.1-3 and 5); at least two longitudinal supporting members (30/32 or 230/232, figs.1-3 and 5); and a plurality of wheels (50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, figs.1-3 and 5); wherein the proximal supporting member, distal supporting member, each longitudinal supporting member, and each wheel is configured to interconnect to each other through an adjustment mechanism (each member and wheel interconnect to each other as seen in figures 1-3 and 5) to transition from a collapsed configuration (when the frame and members are taken apart, fig.3, paragraph [0044]) to an assembled configuration (figs.1-2 and 5). Regarding claim 13, Hanlon discloses further comprising at least two transverse supporting members (14.24, figs.1-3 and 5), each transverse supporting member further comprising an adjustment mechanism configured to interconnect the transverse supporting members to the longitudinal supporting members and at least four corner supporting members (12, 16, 22, 26, figs.1-3 and 5), each corner supporting member further comprising an adjustment mechanism configured to interconnect the transverse supporting members to the corner supporting members and to interconnect the corner supporting members to the longitudinal supporting members (fisg.1-3 and 5). Regarding claim 20, Hanlon discloses further comprising a packaging assembly (packaging for shipping when dolly frame 2 is broken down, paragraph [0044]) that maintains the frame kit in the collapsed configuration. Regarding claim 21, Hanlon discloses a method for packaging a vehicle cargo cavity frame kit (dolly frame 2/202, figs.1-3 and 5) having a proximal supporting member (14, figs.1-3 and 5), a distal supporting member (24, figs.1-3 and 5), at least two longitudinal supporting members (30/32 or 230/232, figs.1-3 and 5), a plurality of wheels (50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, figs.1-3 and 5), and a series of hardware items for connecting the members and wheels together (members and wheels all connect together as seen in figures 1-3 and 5), the method comprising: producing an instructions manual, the instructions manual comprising instructions to assemble the vehicle cargo cavity frame from a collapsed configuration (dolly frame 2 can be broken down, fig.3, paragraph [0044]) into an assembled configuration (figs.1-2 and 5); aligning the proximal supporting member, distal supporting member, each longitudinal supporting member, and each wheel in the collapsed configuration; and applying a packaging to maintain the collapsed configuration during transportation (packaging for shipping in the broken down state, paragraph [0044]), wherein the contents of the kit in the collapsed configuration can be separated from each piece configured to interconnect to form the assembled configuration (dolly frame 2 can be broken down for shipping, fig.3, paragraph [0044]). Regarding claim 23, Hanlon discloses further comprising aligning a corner supporting member (12,16,22,26, figs.3) in the collapsed configuration. Regarding claim 24, Hanlon discloses further comprising aligning a transverse supporting member (14/24, fig.3) in the collapsed configuration. 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanlon (US 20230024997 A1) in view of Hewitt (US 6109625 A). Regarding claim 2, Hanlon discloses the frame of claim 1 and longitudinal supporting members having hole (members 232/230 have holes for wheels 257 and 255, fig.5), but fails to disclose the holes along an outer side of the longitudinal supporting members. However, Hewitt discloses longitudinal supporting members (extension members 14, fig.1) further comprise a plurality of holes (holes, fig.1) displaced along at least an outer side of the longitudinal supporting members configured to interconnect the wheels to the longitudinal supporting members and to adjust the placement of the wheels along the longitudinal supporting members (wheels 15 are mounted via bolt 28 and nut 24 and can be mounted along the extensions 14 at an of the holes, fig.1). Hanlon and Hewitt are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mobile frames. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanlon with the holes and wheel mounting of Hewitt with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of being able to attach multiple wheels to better distribute a heavier load, and having the wheels attached to the side instead of the bottom lowers base and makes the dolly more stable. Claim(s) 10, 19, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanlon (US 20230024997 A1) in view of Luo (CN 108382434 A). Regarding claims 10, 19, and 25, Hanlon discloses the frame of claim 1, the frame kit of claim 11, and the method of claim 21 but fails to disclose further comprising at least four stop bumpers disposed at the proximal and distal ends of the frame. However, Luo discloses at least four stop bumpers (damping blocks 8, fig.1) disposed at the proximal and distal ends of the frame. Hanlon and Luo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dollies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanlon with the damping blocks of Luo with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of helping to prevent damage done by the dolly went it bumps into things. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanlon (US 20230024997 A1) in Prescott (US 20200361504 A1). Regarding claim 12, Hanlon discloses the frame kit of claim 11, but fails to disclose a plurality of holes along an outer side. However, Prescott discloses adjustment mechanism further includes a plurality of holes displaced along at least an outer side of the proximal supporting member, distal supporting member, and each longitudinal supporting member, such adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a longitudinal distance between the proximal supporting member and distal supporting member and also configured to adjust a transverse distance between the longitudinal supporting members. Hanlon and Prescott are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wheeled frames. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanlon with the adjustment holes of Prescott with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of being more adjustable to accommodate different sized loads, making the cart more versatile. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanlon (US 20230024997 A1) in Prescott (US 20200361504 A1) and in further view of Poudrier (US 11097759 B1). Regarding claim 15, Hanlon discloses base (510/520/525, figs.14-15) attached to frame (502, figs.14-15) and the frame kit of claim 13 but fails to disclose the limitations in claim 15. However, Prescott discloses wherein the adjustment mechanism further includes a plurality of holes (outer holes in members, fig.1-2) displaced along at least an outer side of the transverse supporting members and corner supporting members. Poudrier discloses wherein the longitudinal supporting members, transverse supporting members, and corner supporting members further include a plurality of holes displaced along at least an upper side, wherein the longitudinal supporting members, transverse supporting members, and corner supporting members interconnect to a base through the plurality of holes (base plates 68 attached to horizontal frame by passing bolts through openings in base plates 68 and corresponding openings in horizontal frame 12, figs.2-5, column 4, lines 51-55). Hanlon and Prescott are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wheeled frames. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanlon with the adjustment holes of Prescott with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of being more adjustable to accommodate different sized loads, making the cart more versatile. Hanlon and Poudrier are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of frames of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanlon with the mounting bolts for base of Poudrier with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combine prior art elements yielding predictable results of securely fastening the base to the frame. Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanlon (US 20230024997 A1) and in view of McCoy (US 5249823 A). Regarding claims 8 and 18, Hanlon discloses the frame of claim 1 and the frame kit of claim 11, but fails to disclose at least two medial supporting members. However, McCoy discloses further comprising at least two medial supporting members (48, 49, 24, figs.1-4) extending in the transverse direction, wherein the medial supporting members are configured to couple with the longitudinal supporting members and to couple the two medial supporting members together (members 48 and 49 couple to the members 20 and 21, figs.1 and 3), wherein the medial supporting members include a plurality of holes (apertures 52, 39, and aperture in 24 for pin 34, figs.1-4, 7, and 10) displaced along at least an outer side and an upper side configured to interconnect the medial supporting members together and to interconnect the medial supporting members to the longitudinal supporting members (figs.1-4, 7, and 10). Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanlon (US 20230024997 A1). Regarding claim 22, Hanlon discloses in different embodiment further comprising aligning a medial supporting member (cross-supports 370, 372, 374, figs.6-7) in the collapsed configuration. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the cross-supports in figures 6-7 can be used with the dolly in figures 1-5 to provide additional support and rigidity at a certain dimension. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 5 depends upon claim 4 which is rejected, but claim 5 has the limitation of “wherein the transverse supporting members and the corner supporting members further include a plurality of holes displaced along at least an outer side configured to interconnect the transverse supporting members to the corner supporting members and to interconnect the corner supporting members to the longitudinal supporting members, wherein the longitudinal supporting members, transverse supporting members, and corner supporting members further include a plurality of holes displaced along at least an upper side, wherein the longitudinal supporting members, transverse supporting members, and comer supporting members interconnect to a base through the plurality of holes, wherein at least two item stop members, each item stop member further comprising a plurality of holes displaced on at least a bottom side configured to couple the item stop members to the base through the plurality of holes.” The primary reference of Hanlon fails to disclose the members having a plurality of holes along an outer side configured for interconnecting. However, both Prescott (US 20200361504 A1) and Hewitt (US 6109625 A) disclose members with outer holes for interconnecting members. Prescott and Hewitt both fail to disclose the members having holes at an upper side to interconnect a base. Hanlon discloses a base (510/520/525, figs.14-15) attached to the frame (502, fig.14-15). Poudrier (US 11097759 B1) discloses base plates (68, figs.2-5) mounted to the frame (12) via bolts through openings in base plates and frame (column 4, lines 51-55). Poudrier fails to disclose at least two item stop members. Adding another reference to teach the at least two item stop members and coupling the item stop members to the base through the plurality of holes would be modifying a modifying reference and would be hindsight. For the reasons above claim 5 has allowable subject matter. Claim 17 which depends upon claim 15 which is rejected, but claim 17 has the limitation of “further comprising at least two item stop members, each item stop member further comprising a plurality of holes displaced on at least a bottom side configured to couple the item stop members to the base through the plurality of holes.” Claim 17 has the same allowable subject matter as claim 5 discussed above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00. 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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (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 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. /IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613 /JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 31, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600396
BABY CARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589791
HANDRAIL MECHANISM AND BABY CARRIAGE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583528
MOVING OBJECT CABIN AND MOVING OBJECT INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583497
SINGLE-OPERATOR MULTI-FUNCTION FOLDABLE TRANSPORTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576912
VEHICLE CHASSIS AND VEHICLE
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
78%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+15.3%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 240 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