Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/546,154

DEVICE FOR MOVING A LOAD ROLLING ON RAILS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 11, 2023
Priority
Feb 12, 2021 — FR 2101370 +1 more
Examiner
MCCARRY JR, ROBERT J
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Gillet Group
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allowance Rate
1249 granted / 1524 resolved
+30.0% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1551
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
50.9%
+10.9% vs TC avg
§102
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
§112
4.4%
-35.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1524 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The Information Disclosure Statement filed on August 11, 2023 has been reviewed and considered by the Examiner. 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 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) 12, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krezak et al (US 4,125,029) in view of Hill (US 2,432,156) and further in view of Lehmann (DE 202013100965 U1). Krezak et al discloses a movement device for moving a load provided with wheels and rolling on railway rails comprised of a drive roller 34 attached to the free end of a power supply device 18 and the drive roller being arranged to come to bear against one of the wheels 48 of the load 50 to be moved. Two support rollers 36, 38 are arranged to come to bear against the rail of the railway track, with lower roller 38 and for receiving said wheel of the load to be moved, with upper roller 36 and configured to be rotated by adhesion by said drive roller against the railway wheel 48 being moved. An arm 22 is connected at one end thereof to the shaft of the geared motor, by way of side plate 24, and extending horizontally and perpendicularly to the axis of rotation of the shaft. A brake shoe 44 is rigidly connected to the free end of said arm, as shown in figure 1, and arranged, to be disposed in the vicinity of said wheel of the load to be moved on the side opposite to said drive roller, as shown in figure 2, with part 16 opposite part 38, and bears against the rail of the railway track receiving the wheel. The arm is mounted so as to pivot about the axle of support roller 38, as shown in figure 1. Krezak et al discloses the load moving mechanism as described above. However, Krezak et al does not specifically show a geared motor attached to the drive roller. Hill discloses a railway car moving apparatus comprised of a motor 20 with a derive shaft to engage a gearbox. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied a motor, like that of Hill, to a moving device, like that of Krezak et al, with the expected result of providing a direct drive motor to the drive roller as shown in Krezak et al. Krezak et al discloses the load moving mechanism as described above. However, Krezak et al does not specifically show that the extended arm can be adjusted. Lehmann discloses a movement device for rail cars comprised of drive and support rollers and a horizontally extending arm that may be adjusted to fit around a rail wheel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied an adjustable arm, like that of Lehmann, to a moving device, like that of Krezak et al, with the expected result of allowing the arm to be movable and make the assembly easier to maneuver around a rail wheel. Krezak et al discloses the load moving mechanism as described above. However, Krezak et al does not specifically show that the brake shoe is made of an elastomer material. It is well known in the art that brake shoes may be made of soft metals or elastomer materials so as to allow for a level of friction adhesion as well as wear to slow the wheels where the brake is engaged. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied an elastomer material in the brake shoe, like that of Krezak et al, with the expected result of allowing the shoe to flex and form around the surface of the wheel so as to apply a slowing and stopping force to the rail wheel when desired. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 14, 15 and 17-21 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert J McCarry Jr. whose telephone number is (571)272-6683. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:00. 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, S. Joseph 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. /Robert J McCarry Jr/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 RJM March 3, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 11, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12637122
MONITORING DEVICE FOR A BUFFER STOP
3y 9m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12637121
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING THE STATE OF A WHEEL OF A RAIL VEHICLE
3y 1m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12630981
IMPROVEMENTS IN RAILROAD RAIL PROFILE
3y 9m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12630199
PNEUMATIC SAND CONVEYING DEVICE FOR A SANDING SYSTEM OF A RAIL VEHICLE, SANDING SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A PNEUMATIC SAND CONVEYING DEVICE
3y 2m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12630204
PREDICTIVE RAILROAD CROSSING SAFETY NOTIFICATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHODS
3y 6m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+16.6%)
2y 9m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1524 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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