Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/709,891

PUMP CRADLE ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
May 14, 2024
Examiner
MORRIS, TAYLOR L
Art Unit
3631
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Stormwell Inc.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
407 granted / 683 resolved
+7.6% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
722
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.5%
+5.5% vs TC avg
§102
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 683 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Status of the Application Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined in this application. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 05/14/2024 has/have been taken into account. Response to Amendment In the amendment dated 12/02/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 7, and 13 have been amended; No claims have been canceled; No claims have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that “It would be understood by one skilled in the art that the combination mount and opposed legs in Dane would not be used for this functionality and that one skilled in the art would not consider the combination of the mount and opposed legs to be a handle portion. Not withstanding the fact that the opposed legs and mount are not designed to be a handle portion, there may be damage sustained by these components when used as a handle….Furthermore, it may be possible that if the designated area of the handle portion is damaged during handling, the claimed pump cradle assembly may still be operational. This is likely not the case if the mount or opposed legs of Dane are damaged if they are used as a handle. Therefore, it is submitted that Dane does not anticipate or obviate the subject matter of Claim 1 and that any claims depending from Claim 1 are also patentable over Dane.”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. More specifically, the argument focuses on the fact that the cited handle portion of Dane could potentially be damaged and as such would not be used as a handle, however as this structure is composed of PVC, designed to slide along a ground surface, and Dane even discloses embodiments where tow lines are attached to it, one having ordinary skill in the art would find that the structure is designed to withstand forces encountered during use in its environment and as such it is clear that the cited handle of Dane is capable of functioning as a handle. In response to the arguments directed towards Gell, the action mistakenly identified the handle portion as the earlier cited element 30 when element 40 was intended. As such, a second-nonfinal action has been issued. However, in the event that applicant’s initial argument towards element 30 is applied to element 40, the examiner would respond similarly to the response above in regards to Dane. There is no structural language distinguishing the claimed handle portion from that of element 40 in Gell and furthermore as element 40 of Gell is designed to withstand force during use, and more specifically support the weight of the device, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it as being capable of functioning as a handle. Additionally, the amendment has overcome the objections and 112 rejections set forth in the previous action. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dane (US 7,713,031). Regarding Claim 1, Dane discloses a pump cradle assembly for supporting a submersible pump in a water environment comprising: a sleeve portion (Dane: Fig. 1a, 4; 22) for receiving the submersible pump; an intake portion (Dane: Fig. 1-2a; 40) connected to an intake end of the sleeve portion, the intake portion including a bottom wall portion (Dane: Annotated Fig. 1b; B) and a top wall portion (Dane: Annotated Fig. 1b; T); and at least one handle portion (Dane: Fig. 1b; 42, 56); wherein the bottom wall portion is configured to be located an intake opening bottom wall distance above a floor of the water environment and the top wall portion is configured to be located an intake opening top wall distance above the floor of the water environment; and wherein the sleeve portion is positioned at a predetermined operating angle with respect to the floor of the water environment (Dane: Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 4, Dane discloses the pump cradle assembly of Claim 1 wherein the at least one handle portion (Dane: Fig. 1b; 42, 56) comprises two handle portions. Regarding Claim 5, Dane discloses the pump cradle assembly of Claim 4 wherein the two handle portions (Dane: Fig. 1b; 56) are parallel with each other. Regarding Claim 6, Dane discloses the pump cradle assembly of Claim 4 wherein the two handle portions (Dane: Fig. 1b; 42) are not parallel to each other. Regarding Claim 7, Dane discloses the pump cradle assembly of Claim 1 wherein the handle portion (Dane: Fig. 1b; 42, 56) positions the sleeve portion at the predetermined operating angle (Dane: Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 8, Dane discloses the pump cradle assembly of Claim 1 wherein the sleeve portion (Dane: Fig. 1a, 4; 22), the intake portion (Dane: Fig. 1-2a; 40) and the at least one handle portion (Dane: Fig. 1b; 42, 56) form a pump cradle. Regarding Claim 9, Dane discloses the pump cradle assembly of Claim 8 further comprising a base (Dane: Fig. 1a, 4, 5b; 60, 62, 64) for supporting the pump cradle. Regarding Claim 10, Dane discloses the pump cradle assembly of Claim 9 where the base further comprises a set of holes for receiving ropes (Dane: Fig. 5a-5b; shows base receiving ropes). Regarding Claim 11, Dane discloses the pump cradle assembly of Claim 9 wherein the base (Dane: Fig. 1a, 4, 5b; 60, 62, 64) is curved at both ends. Regarding Claim 12, Dane discloses the pump cradle assembly of Claim 9 wherein the base is made from plastic or metal (Dane: Col. 6, Ln. 59-65). Regarding Claim 13, Dane discloses the pump cradle assembly of Claim 9 wherein the base (Dane: Fig. 1a, 4, 5b; 60, 62, 64) comprises a set of ridges. Regarding Claim 14, Dane discloses the pump cradle assembly of Claim 1 further comprising a set of feet (Dane: Fig. 1a, 4; 58) for supporting the sleeve portion. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gell, III et al. (US 9,810,241). Regarding Claim 1, Gell discloses a pump cradle assembly for supporting a submersible pump in a water environment comprising: a sleeve portion (Gell: Fig. 1-2; 30) for receiving the submersible pump; an intake portion (Gell: Fig. 1-2; 20) connected to an intake end of the sleeve portion, the intake portion including a bottom wall portion (Gell: Fig. 4; 22) and a top wall portion (Gell: Fig. 4; 24); and at least one handle portion (Gell: Fig. 1-2; 40); wherein the bottom wall portion is configure to be located an intake opening bottom wall distance above a floor of the water environment and the top wall portion is configured to be located an intake opening top wall distance above the floor of the water environment; and wherein the sleeve portion is positioned at a predetermined operating angle with respect to the floor of the water environment. Regarding Claim 2, Gell discloses the pump cradle assembly of Claim 1 wherein the intake portion (Gell: Fig. 1-2; 20)expands vertically from an end away from the sleeve portion to an end closest to the sleeve portion. Regarding Claim 3, Gell discloses the pump cradle assembly of Claim 2 wherein the top wall portion (Gell: Fig. 4; 24) of the intake portion (Gell: Fig. 1-2; 20) is located a clearance distance away from a minimum water level. [Note: The intake portion of Gell can be rotated through 360 degrees (Col. 4, Ln. 25-28) and therefore can be placed with the top wall portion having the recited distance.] Annotated Figures PNG media_image1.png 598 596 media_image1.png Greyscale I: Dane; Fig. 1b Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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. /Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 14, 2024
Application Filed
May 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Dec 02, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595035
OUTBOARD MOTOR SUPPORT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595061
MODULAR POWER BOX MOUNTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576801
PIVOTING ARRANGEMENT AND CABLE-GUIDE ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565321
FRONT ENGINE ATTACHMENT SYSTEM INTENDED FOR AN AIRCRAFT ENGINE AND HAVING A COMPACT STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12553284
REMOVABLE SUPPORT PLATFORM FOR LADDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+35.6%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 683 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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