Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/535,091

AUTOMOTIVE AMPHIBIAN TRAILER ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 11, 2023
Examiner
HAYES, JOVON E
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
759 granted / 894 resolved
+32.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
915
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
38.0%
-2.0% vs TC avg
§102
31.3%
-8.7% vs TC avg
§112
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 894 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION This is first action on the merits of application 18535091. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim has “(“ punctuation that must be removed. 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. Claim 6, 12 and 16 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. Regarding claim 6 and 16, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 4.2 Regarding claim 12, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “1 or more floats”, and the claim also recites “preferably a quartet of floats” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. 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. Claim(s) 1, 12-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Zelechonok US 8454399. Claim 1 and 20, Zelechonok discloses an automotive amphibian trailer assembly [roof top mechanism figs 1-2] including: a trailer [carried by vehicle] for being towed by a vehicle, and upon which the vehicle can be loaded [when hulls/pontoons 24/25 are lowered]; and inflatable means for inflating to float the loaded trailer on water. [fig. 12; col. 8 lines 10-25]. Claim 12, Zelechonok discloses wherein the inflatable means 86 includes one or more inflatable floats [24/25], and preferably a quartet of floats located at corners or sides of the trailer. See fig. 3. Claim 13, Zelechonok discloses the floats [24/25] are elongate, cylindrical, and/or have a streamlined or tapered shape. See fig. 3 Claim 14, Zelechonok discloses wherein the floats are separated along the trailer to access wheels. See fig. 3 Claim 15, Zelechonok discloses wherein the floats can be deflated and compacted to be stored on the trailer when the trailer is being towed. See col. 8 lines 10-25. 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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zelechonok et al, and further in view of DOLHAY WO 9937493. Claim 16, Zelechonok discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1 and 12, he does not disclose the assembly can float without the floats attached and vehicle loaded, and so can still be used when carrying lighter loads than a vehicle such as one or more people. However, Dolhay discloses this in fig. 1b. Thus, it 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 to have combined the disclosures to use a hull to support a vehicle or person without use of floats to sail on a body or water. Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ow (US 3779574) in further view of Zelechonok (US 8454399). Claims 1-2, Ow discloses a towable amphibious trailer frame (20, figure 3) with a carrying body 12 and removable floats (pontoons P). Note that while the limitation “can be” is not a positive recitation of structure or function and only refers to an optional possibility, as disclosed by Ow from line 66 of column 1 to line 5 of column 2, the body 12 can be selected to have “any vehicle configuration”, including a platform or general utility trailer, which would be capable of carrying a wheeled vehicle including the draft vehicle. As described, the Ow reference discloses all of the claimed features except for the use of the pontoons being inflatable. Zelechonok teaches the use of inflatable pontoons to be well known in the amphibious vehicle art, in order to make them more compact thereby decreasing the amount of space to stow them when not in use (Colum 8, lines 16-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ow to include the use of the pontoons being inflatable, as taught by Zelechonok, in order to make them more compact thereby decreasing the amount of space to stow them when they are removed from the trailer and not in use. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-5, 7-11, 17-19 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 6 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOVON E HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-3115. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm M-F. 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, Samuel Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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. /JOVON E HAYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3615 /S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 11, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600443
FLOATING UNIT WITH UNDER KEEL TANK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589837
A BUOYANT ROTATABLE MARINE TRANSDUCER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589842
Fender Hook Rope Anchor
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583571
Motion Transforming Differentially Biased Transmission for Human Powered Vehicles
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583560
FLOATING POWER GENERATION PLATFORM
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
85%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+8.4%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 894 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