Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/533,742

UNIVERSAL WHEEL SYSTEM WITH ADAPTER PLATE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Dec 08, 2023
Examiner
OLSZEWSKI, JOHN
Art Unit
3617
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kimpex Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
192 granted / 300 resolved
+12.0% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
6 currently pending
Career history
306
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.6%
+5.6% vs TC avg
§102
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 300 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(s) 1-3, 8, and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ouellette (US 2015/0123360). 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) 1-3, 8, and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ouellette (US 2015/0123360). With regards to claim 1, Ouellette discloses a wheel system for a snowmobile ski (abstract), comprising: an adapter plate (Figure 9, 410) adapted to be secured to the ski (100); an actuating assembly comprising: a support plate (420) removably securable to the adapter plate to enable selective connection and disconnection of the actuating assembly from the adapter plate and from the ski (via 430), the support plate being securable to the adapter plate in a predetermined position (when 430 is engaged in the 414 or 415 position the support plate and the adapter plate are secured to one another); and an actuator (212) pivotally connectable to the support plate and being operable between an idle configuration and an engaged configuration; and a wheel (230) coupled to the actuator and adapted to be positioned in a raised position spaced from a ground surface when operating the actuator in the idle configuration, and a lowered position in engagement with the ground surface when operating the actuator in the engaged configuration. With regards to claim 2, Ouellette discloses the wheel system of claim 1, wherein the support plate (420) includes a cut-out section defining an opening through the support plate (Hole at first end, 422), and the adapter plate (410) comprises a connector hole (414, 415, and 416), and wherein the support plate is removably securable to the adapter plate via a connector (Figure 9E, 430) adapted to extend through the opening and engage the connector hole. With regards to claim 3, Ouellette discloses the wheel system of claim 2, wherein the adapter plate comprises at least two connector holes (414 and 415), and wherein the predetermined position in which the support plate is secured to the adapter plate is adjustable in a first direction by aligning the opening of the cut-out section with any one of the at least two connector holes. With regards to claim 8, Ouellette discloses the wheel system of claim 1, wherein the ski is coupled to the snowmobile via a bolt (kingpin 110, clearly illustrated as a nut and bolt configuration), and wherein the adapter plate is securable to the ski at least via the bolt (110). With regards to claim 10, Ouellette discloses a wheel system for a snowmobile ski (abstract), comprising: an adapter plate (410) adapted to be secured to the ski; an actuating assembly comprising a support plate (420) adjustably securable to the adapter plate via a connecting element (430) to enable securing the support plate to the adapter plate in one of a plurality of predetermined positions; and an actuator (212) pivotally connectable to the support plate in the one of the plurality of predetermined positions and being operable between an idle configuration and an engaged configuration; and a wheel (230) coupled to the actuator and adapted to be positioned in a raised position spaced from a ground surface when operating the actuator in the idle configuration, and a lowered position in engagement with the ground surface when operating the actuator in the engaged configuration, wherein each predetermined position of the support plate relative to the adapter plate defines respective positions of the actuator and the wheel relative to the adapter plate and the ski. With regards to claim 11, Ouellette discloses the wheel system of claim 10, wherein the support plate is removably connectable to the adapter plate (via 430) to enable selective connection and disconnection of the actuating assembly from the adapter plate and the ski. With regards to claim 12, Ouellette discloses the wheel system of claim 10, wherein the connecting element (430) comprises one or more fasteners adapted to extend through the support plate and engage the adapter plate to secure the support plate to the adapter plate in a desired one of the plurality of predetermined positions. With regards to claim 13, Ouellette discloses the wheel system of claim 12, wherein adjusting the relative position of the support plate and the adapter plate correspondingly adjusts a distance between the wheel and the ground surface, and wherein the desired one of the plurality of predetermined positions of the support plate includes a desired distance between the wheel and the ground surface. With regards to claim 14, Ouellette discloses the wheel system of claim 10, wherein the support plate comprises one or more fastener holes (holes present in element 420 at the 422 end) and the adapter plate comprises one or more fastener-receiving holes (416), and wherein the support plate is indexable relative to the adapter plate between the plurality of predetermined positions via alignment of any one of the one or more fastener holes with any one of the one or more fastener-receiving holes (indexable between 414 and 415). With regards to claim 15, Ouellette discloses the wheel system of claim 10, wherein the ski is coupled to the snowmobile via a bolt (kingpin 110, clearly illustrated as a nut and bolt configuration), and wherein the adapter plate is securable to the ski at least via the bolt (110). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 9 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette (US 2015/0123360). With regards to claim 9, while Ouellette discloses the wheel system of claim 1, used on a snowmobile ski there is no explicit disclosure of the assembly being for a right, left, or both skis of a snowmobile, however, this amounts to no more than a mere duplication of parts which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza). And in the instance of the instant application, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant application to have placed this wheel assembly on any skis used on a snowmobile to aid in the movement of the snowmobile over hard surfaces. With regards to claim 16, Ouellette fails to disclose the wheel system of claim 10, where in the adapter plate and the bolt are integrally formed as a single piece removably connectable to the ski, however, it has been held that making components integral with one another is obvious, so it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the instant application to form the adapter plate and bolt as one piece as it would perform the same function as they do separately and would have yielded predictable results (In re Larson). With regards to claim 17, Ouellette discloses a wheel system for a snowmobile ski of a snowmobile (abstract), comprising: an adapter plate (Figure 9, 410) adapted to be secured to the ski (100); an actuating assembly comprising :a support plate (420) securable to the adapter plate; and an actuator (212) pivotally connectable to the support plate and being operable between an idle configuration and an engaged configuration; and a wheel (230) coupled to the actuator and adapted to be positioned in a raised position spaced from a ground surface when operating the actuator in the idle configuration, and a lowered position in engagement with the ground surface when operating the actuator in the engaged configuration, wherein the snowmobile ski is connected to the snowmobile via a bolt (110), and Ouellette fails to disclose wherein the bolt and the adapter plate are integrally formed as a single piece, however, it has been held that making components integral with one another is obvious, so it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the instant application to form the adapter plate and bolt as one piece as it would perform the same function as they do separately and would have yielded predictable results (In re Larson). With regards to claim 18, while Ouellette fails to explicitly disclose the wheel system of claim 17, further comprising a sleeve removably slidable onto the bolt to increase an outer diameter thereof, however, it is old and well known in the art, for a multiplicity of applications and industries, to make use of a sleeve on a bolt. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant application to use a sleeve on the bolt for a multiplicity of reasons. The usage of a sleeve aids in ensuring that the side walls/ribs of the ski are not overtightened as it provides a limiting effect to the tightening of the bolt, also, similar to the bushings mentioned in Ouellette, usage of the sleeve aids in limiting wear to the bolt itself from the weight of the snowmobile through the front suspension when the front ski pivots over terrain, another reason to make use of the sleeve is to aid in distributing the front weight load of the snowmobile over the bolt. With regards to claim 19, Ouellette discloses the wheel system of claim 17, wherein the adapter plate has a rear surface with at least a portion thereof being complementarily-shaped relative to outer contours of the ski to increase conformity of the adapter plate to the ski (as the adapter plate, 410, is designed to either be mounted to rib 140, via mounting bores 428 or placed in the mold during the molding process it is a flat plate secured to a flat plate). With regards to claim 20, Ouellette discloses the wheel system of claim 17, wherein the support plate is securable to the adapter plate in a plurality of predetermined positions (414 and 415), and wherein each one of the plurality of predetermined positions provides a unique position of the wheel relative to at least one of the adapter plate, the snowmobile ski and the ground surface in both the raised and the lowered position. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on January 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended limitations describing the relationship between the support plate and the adapter plate define over the Ouellette reference. In the Ouellette reference the adapter plate (410) and the support plate (420) are securable to one another via element 430 which locks their relative positions in both positions in 414 or 415, these locked positions are equivalent to “predetermined positions”. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-6 (claims 5-6 due to their dependence on claim 4) and 7 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. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Supervisory Patent Examiner should be directed to JOHN R. OLSZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2706. The Supervisory Patent Examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am - 4:00pm. 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 Supervisory Patent Eexaminer by telephone are unsuccessful, the Supervisory Patent Examiner’s supervisor, TC Director Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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. JOHN R. OLSZEWSKI Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 3617 /JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 08, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 21, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12576936
VEHICLE WITH SPHERICAL WHEELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12491844
COMPACT OUTRIGGER DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent 12487019
Pull-Around Ice Chest Barrel Cooler Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12451005
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUMS FOR ESTIMATING A POSITION OF A TAIL OF A VEHICLE QUEUE
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 21, 2025
Patent 12434780
Trailer System
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 07, 2025
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+20.6%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 300 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