Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/498,958

VEHICLE TRAILER COUPLING MECHANISM AND VEHICLE SUPPORT

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 31, 2023
Examiner
KNUTSON, JACOB D
Art Unit
3611
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
824 granted / 1043 resolved
+27.0% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1079
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
45.9%
+5.9% vs TC avg
§102
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
§112
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1043 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second semi-spherical ball lock locking portion" in lines 9 – 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, line 5 recites “a second locking portion” and line 7 recites “a second semi-spherical ball lock”, however there is no recitation of “a second semi-spherical ball lock locking portion”. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first semi-spherical ball lock locking portion" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See above. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first and second semi-spherical balls" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, line 3 recites “a first semi-spherical ball lock” and line 7 recites “a second semi-spherical ball lock”, but does not explicitly provide antecedent basis for “balls”. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second semi-spherical ball lock locking portion" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8, lines 4 – 5 recites “a second locking portion” and line 8 – 9 recites “a second semi-spherical ball lock”, however there is no recitation of “a second semi-spherical ball lock locking portion”. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first semi-spherical ball lock locking portion" in lines 13 – 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See above. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first and second semi-spherical balls" in lines 14 – 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15, lines 3 – 4 recites “a first semi-spherical ball lock” and line 9 recites “a second semi-spherical ball lock”, but does not explicitly provide antecedent basis for “balls”. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second semi-spherical ball lock locking portion" in lines 11 - 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8, lines 4 – 5 recites “a second locking portion” and line 8 – 9 recites “a second semi-spherical ball lock”, however there is no recitation of “a second semi-spherical ball lock locking portion”. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first semi-spherical ball lock locking portion" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See above. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first and second semi-spherical balls" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15, lines 3 – 4 recites “a first semi-spherical ball lock” and line 9 recites “a second semi-spherical ball lock”, but does not explicitly provide antecedent basis for “balls”. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 8, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. Claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14, and 16 – 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose a first semi-spherical ball lock configured within a cavity of a first prong; a second semi-spherical ball lock configured within a cavity of the second prong; and the first and second semi-spherical ball locks along a joining plane to form a spherical ball lock in the cavity of the first prong and the cavity of the second prong. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR-101028334 – comprising connecting hemisphere; a coil spring; bar cap; and bar; DE-102010011175 – comprising a joint housing; a second shaft; a pocket end; and a running ball; and CN-2738027 – comprising coupling housing; ball joints; passive engage teeth; and output ends. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacob D. Knutson whose telephone number is (571)270-5576. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm. 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)-272-6265. 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. /JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 31, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 02, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583504
STEERING MECHANISM, STEERING SYSTEM, VEHICLE, AND CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12565261
MOTOR DRIVEN POWER STEERING SYSTEM OF REDUNDANCY STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12565258
RUDDER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559162
STEERING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12559163
CONTROLLER FOR ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE, AND ELECTRIC POWER STEERING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
99%
With Interview (+21.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1043 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