Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/583,622

TRELLIS MOVER AND METHODS OF PROVIDING AND USING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Feb 21, 2024
Examiner
KIM, SANG K
Art Unit
3654
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Growers House Operations, LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
1419 granted / 1749 resolved
+29.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
1795
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
§102
30.2%
-9.8% vs TC avg
§112
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1749 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 already recites “the first guides,” thus, how does claim 3 further limit the claim? Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van der Zee, US 2012/0292425 A1. Regarding claim 1, Van der Zee ‘425 discloses a dispensing rack 24 comprising a first stand (a left side of 26), a second stand (a right side of 26), and a movable base 27, wherein the first and second stands are configured to hold multiple rolls 2 and dispense multiple layers (e.g., trellis is intended use of the material, applicant did not invent the material, claim 9) simultaneously from the multiple rolls, see figures 2 and 4. Regarding claims 2-3, Van der Zee ‘425 discloses the first and second stands each comprise a respective first brace 26 comprising respect first attachment mechanism 29 and configured to hold first guides (i.e., shafts for the rolls) for the multiple rolls 2, and the first and second stands are configured to hold the multiple rolls 2 using the first guides, see figures 2 and 4. Regarding claims 6-7, Van der Zee ‘425 discloses the movable base comprises four wheels 28 and cross-cross braces (no reference number), see figures 2 and 4. Claims 1-3, and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kostigian, U.S. Patent No. 8099815 B2. Regarding claims 1 and 10 (i.e., including the limitations explained in claims 2-3 and 5-9), Kostigian ‘815 discloses a dispensing rack 10 comprising a first stand (a left side of 28), a second stand (a right side of 26), and a movable base (102, 112), wherein the first and second stands are configured to hold multiple rolls 52 and dispense multiple layers (e.g., trellis is intended use of the material, applicant did not invent the material, claim 9) simultaneously from the multiple rolls, see figures 1-9. Regarding claims 2-3, Kostigian ‘815 discloses the first and second stands each comprise a respective first brace 22 comprising respect first attachment mechanism (40, 42) and configured to hold first guides (46, 47) secured at the respective attachment mechanisms using pins 48 rather than cotter pins for the multiple rolls 52, and the first and second stands are configured to hold the multiple rolls 52 using the first guides, see figures 1-9. Regarding claim 5, Kostigian ‘815 discloses the first and second stands each comprise a respective second brace 24 comprising second attachment mechanism (40, 42) and configured to hold second guides (46, 47, other end) at respective dispensing heights for the multiple layers, see figures 1-9. Regarding claims 6-8, Kostigian ‘815 discloses the movable base comprises four wheels 124 and cross-cross braces 38 and adjustable using (102, 112, see figure 5), see figures 1-9. 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. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostigian, U.S. Patent No. 8099815 B2, in view of Kalies, U.S. Patent No. 5120170. As stated above, Kostigian ‘815 discloses uses a pin rather than a cotter pin. Kalies ‘170 discloses the concept of securing the shaft using a cotter pin 37, see figures 1-4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the securing pin of Kostigian ‘815 to include a cotter pin as suggested by Kalies ‘170, in order to secure the shaft. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-6947. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 9 P.M or Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 7 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anna Momper, can be reached on (571) 270-5788. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). SK 8/14/25 /SANG K KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 21, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 01, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589965
Mobile Reel Carrier
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589970
HOSE GUIDE FOR HOSE REEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583644
WRAPPING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583708
DEVICE FOR DEPLOYING ROLL-UP REELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583707
AUXILIARY DEVICE FOR REELS, AND REEL INCLUDING THE SAME
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
81%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+4.6%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1749 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