Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 17, 2026
Application No. 18/706,002

DISCHARGING SYSTEM FOR A HOPPER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 30, 2024
Priority
Nov 04, 2021 — NL 2029628 +1 more
Examiner
MAYO, TARA LEIGH
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Ihc Holland Ie B V
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3m
Est. Remaining
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
980 granted / 1313 resolved
+22.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1346
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
44.7%
+4.7% vs TC avg
§102
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
§112
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1313 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. CLAIMS 1 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sacre et al. (EP 2699004 A1) in view of Masuda (JP 2014076695 A). CLAIM 1 Sacre teaches discharging system for a hopper (1), the discharging system comprising; an outlet (27) on a lower part of the hopper for discharging the dredged material (fig. 1, 2A); and at least one water jet valve ("nozzles", 35-40) for fluidizing the dredged material while discharging (D1, par. 41). Sacre fails to teach a plurality of sensors. Masuda teaches one or more sensors (detectors 601), which can be of different kinds (D2, par. 20), such as a pressure sensor - a part of a pressure sensor for a column of sand or dredged material is implicitly positioned at the bottom of the sand column, so at a bottom wall of the ship. Moreover, Masuda discloses in par. 10 to fluidize the material with spray means, the spraying control being dependent on the detectors. And this in order to speed up unloading (par. 10). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sacre with the sensors of Masuda for the purpose of operational efficiency. The method steps of CLAIM 23 are inherent to use of the system disclosed by Sacre. The limitations of CLAIMS 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 11, 12, 14-17, 19 AND 20 are taught by the combination of Sacre and Masuda. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST. 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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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. /TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 30, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12733567
SOIL OPENER
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12721252
TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR WORKING A FIELD
6y 1m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12714008
GAS EXPLOSION TYPE INTELLIGENT VARIABLE-RATE FERTILIZATION SCARIFIER FOR TEA GARDEN
2y 8m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12696847
Garden tool
2y 10m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12680527
GEOGRAPHICALLY RECONFIGURABLE WAVE-POWERED COMPUTING NETWORK
4y 1m to grant Granted Jul 14, 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
75%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+11.2%)
2y 7m (~3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1313 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