Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/776,360

SYSTEMS, APPARATUS, AND METHODS FOR MAINTENANCE OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 18, 2024
Priority
Oct 30, 2018 — provisional 62/753,050 +4 more
Examiner
MAYO, TARA LEIGH
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Advanced Drainage Systems Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
978 granted / 1308 resolved
+14.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1341
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
63.6%
+23.6% vs TC avg
§102
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
§112
15.0%
-25.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1308 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 . Drawings Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to because of the following reason(s). Each of Figures 7A-8B includes shading that is not in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(m). 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 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crummel (US 3,048,983 A) in view of McClure (US 6,345,791 B1). CLAIMS 21, 22 Crummel shows a flared end ramp (10) capable of managing the flow of material into a stormwater chamber, the flared end ramp comprising: an inlet end (at 60) configured for connection to a pipe or an inlet end cap of the stormwater chamber; an outlet end (the outlet end of 14) configured for placement within the stormwater chamber (e.g., a complementarily shaped stormwater chamber); an inclined surface (14) extending between the inlet end and the outlet end of the flared end ramp and configured to deliver material from the pipe into the stormwater chamber; and and at least one support foot (Crummel, 40 & 17, collectively) connected to a bottom surface of the outlet end. Crummel fails to teach a drainage groove. McClure shows configurations for both (a) various prior art hydrodynamic surfaces (Figs. 1-3), and (b) an embodiment of a skin friction drag-reducing hydrodynamic surface (Figs. 5 and 6), wherein each hydrodynamic surface includes at least one drainage groove (McClure, valleys such as 15 and 23) extending in the direction of fluid flow. It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the inclined surface (Crummel, 14) of the prior art ramp with the addition of at least one groove (McClure, valleys such as 15 and 23) between the inlet end (Crummel, at 60) of the flared end ramp and the outlet end (Crummel, outlet end of 14) of the flared end ramp (Crummel, 10), as suggested by McClure. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for reducing turbulent flows along the ramp (McClure, col. 1, ll. 12-29) with a reasonable expectation of success. CLAIM 23 In the prior art combination, the at least one support foot comprises: a first support foot (Crummel, 40 and 17) extending laterally from a first side wall of the flared end ramp; and a second support foot (Crummell, 40 and 18) extending laterally from a second side wall of the flared end ramp (Crummel, Fig. 1). CLAIM 24 The claim further limits the stormwater chamber of CLAIM 21, but the scope of the claimed invention is exclusive of the stormwater chamber. CLAIM 25 In the prior art combination, the at least one support foot (Crummel, 40, 17) is configured to extend below a width of the stormwater chamber (Crummel, Fig. 1). CLAIM 26 In the prior art combination, the at least one support foot (Crummel, 40, 17) is configured to secure the flared end ramp relative to the stormwater chamber (Crummel, col. 2, ll. 29-32). CLAIM 27 In the prior art combination, the at least one support (Crummel, 40, 17) foot is configured to have a width equal to a width of the stormwater chamber (Crummel, via attachment to the flared ramp 10). CLAIM 28 In the prior art combination, the at least one support foot (Crummel, 40, 17) is configured to have a width larger than a width of the stormwater chamber (Crummel, via attachment to the flared ramp 10). Allowable Subject Matter CLAIMS 29-39 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. CLAIM 40 is allowed. 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 /tm/ 27 June 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 18, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12680527
GEOGRAPHICALLY RECONFIGURABLE WAVE-POWERED COMPUTING NETWORK
4y 1m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12677727
PRECISION SEED DROP SPREADING DEVICE WITH FLUTED ROLLER AND GROUND WHEEL MECHANISM
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12667043
Downforce Load Sensor for a Planter Row Unit
2y 10m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12660740
Cavity-Type Seed-Metering Device with Magnetic Seed Protection Assembly
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12653085
Apparatus, Systems And Methods For Steerable Toolbars
5y 10m to grant Granted Jun 16, 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 (+11.7%)
2y 7m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1308 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