Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/589,166

Bilateral Dumping Cart

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 27, 2024
Examiner
EBNER, KATY MEYER
Art Unit
3613
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
495 granted / 737 resolved
+15.2% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
756
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.4%
+8.4% vs TC avg
§102
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 737 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 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 – 7, 11 – 14, and 16 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Binning (US 6,669,304 B2). As for claim 1, Binning discloses a bilateral dumping cart comprising: a front, a rear, a left side, and a right side; a bed (70) supported by a frame (55); a pair of axles (25, 30) connected to the frame; wherein each one of the pair of axles is connected to a set of wheels (35); and a dumping mechanism (115/120) positioned on at least one of the left side or the right side of the bilateral dumping cart. As for claim 2, Binning further discloses the bed being pivotally connected to the frame by the dumping mechanism (Fig. 7). As for claim 3, Binning further discloses a handle (100) that when lifted causes the side dumping mechanism to transition from the locked configuration to an unlocked configuration. As for claim 4, Binning further discloses a rod (120) that extends through an annular band (115) affixed to at least one of the bed or the frame. As for claim 5, Binning further discloses a circular aperture through the length of the cylinder to hold the rod in place (Fig. 8). As for claims 6 – 7, Binning further discloses the frame comprising a top portion (105) and a bottom portion (55), wherein the top portion is pivotally connected to the bottom portion on at least one of the left side or the right side. As for claims 11 – 13, Binning further discloses two dumping mechanisms, one of the two dumping mechanisms located on the left side and one of the two dumping mechanism located on the right side. The one of the two dumping mechanisms on the left side is configured to tilt the bed towards the right side when unlocked. The one of the two dumping mechanisms on the right side is configured to tilt the bed towards the left side when unlocked (see Fig. 5). As for claim 14, Binning discloses a side dumping mechanism comprising: a handle (see loop at the top of Fig. 8) connected to a rod (120); the rod extending through a first annular band (115) and a second annular band (115); wherein the side dumping mechanism is connected to a bilateral dumping cart comprising a frame (Fig. 5). As for claims 16 and 17, Binning discloses annular bands (115) on both a dumping bed and a frame of the bilateral dumping cart (Fig. 5). As for claim 18, Binning discloses the rod comprising a proximal and a distal end, the proximal end of the rod connected to the handle (Fig. 8). 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) 8 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binning (US 6,669,304 B2) in view of Liu (US 12,403,946). As for claim 8, Binning disclose a raised axle to provide ground clearance (see Fig. 5). Liu discloses a curved axle (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply change the shape of the axle of Binning to a curved arch as taught by Liu as a matter of obvious design choice. As for claims 9 – 10, Liu discloses a rectangular bar (130) extending perpendicularly from one of the pair of axles proximate the front, a pull handle (150) pivotally connected to the rectangular bar by an elongate shaft (140). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the handle assembly of Lui for the tow assembly of Binning to accommodate different users. Claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binning (US 6,669,304 B2) alone. As for claims 15 and 19, it would have been obvious to simply bend the handle end of the rod, or provide an indentation on the rod to facilitate grasping of the rod by a user. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 20 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach or suggest the second annular band further comprising a slot, wherein the indentation is perpendicular to the slot in a locked configuration and parallel to the slot in an unlocked configuration. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katy M Ebner whose telephone number is (571)272-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10 a.m. - 3 p.m. 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, J. Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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. /Katy M Ebner/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 27, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12570133
BATTERY PACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12539188
STABILIZER FOR MEDICAL CARTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12533936
Resilient Coupling Element for a Motor Vehicle Having At Least One Coupling Element
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12516649
INTERCHANGEABLE INTAKE MANIFOLD ASSEMBLIES WITH INTERCHANGEABLE FLARE HOUSINGS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12515508
VEHICLE BODY BASE STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 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
67%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+19.2%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 737 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