Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/806,278

VEHICLE INTERCHANGEABLE CARTRIDGE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Aug 15, 2024
Priority
Aug 15, 2023 — provisional 63/519,806 +2 more
Examiner
DOUGLAS, STEVEN O
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Canoo Technologies Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allowance Rate
1250 granted / 1580 resolved
+19.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
1589
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.6%
-35.4% vs TC avg
§103
32.0%
-8.0% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1580 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Election/Restrictions Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claims 1-16, drawn to a delivery van door system, classified in B60J 5/108. II. Claims 17 and 18, drawn to folding ramp, classified in B60P 1/435. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination does not require any sort of folding ramp. The subcombination has separate utility such as use in a rear door system not requiring any sort of latch structure. The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because the search for group I does not require the details of the folding ramp of group II which would lead to diverging fields of search, especially since there fails to be any sort of existing common special feature between the groups. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention. The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. During a telephone conversation with Mr. Christopher Regan on 9/14/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I., claims 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). Claim Objections Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in regard to claim 11, “would” (line 2) should be - - wound - - in order for the claim to be grammatically correct (i.e. misspelling). Appropriate correction is required. 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) 8-11, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pittman (EP 4566855). The Pittman reference discloses a roll up door assembly for a delivery vehicle comprising a rear door insert 2 to fit over the opening in a cargo storage enclosure (not shown) and a roller door 4 mounted on roller rails 10, wherein the roller door is slid up and down to expose and close a door opening (see Figure 3), as claimed. In regard to claim 9 and 10, see Figure 3. In regard to claim 11, see roller door casing proximate reference numeral 8 in Figure 2. In regard to claim 15, see Figure 4. In regard to claim 16, see paragraph [0007]. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Ernsberger IV, Foran et al., and Kuhn references pertain to various vans with associated rear door frame structures with similarities to that of Applicant’s. Claims 1-7 are allowed. Claims 12-14 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record, with the applied Pittman reference being the closest prior art device, alone or in combination, teach Applicant’s invention of a delivery van rear door assembly inclusive of details regarding latches for securing an interchangeable frame or rear door insert or a roller door casing rotatable between a lowered and raised position for installation or removal of a rear door insert, as claimed. To modify the closest prior art to have such limitations would involve teachings gleaned only from the instant application for patent. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN O DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 5:30-4:00 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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. /STEVEN O DOUGLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 15, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12746977
HOOD FOR VEHICLE
2y 1m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12741514
VEHICLE CARGO SPACE ACCESS PROVIDING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12741698
HARDPOINT CONNECTORS FOR COMPOSITE TRUCK BODY FLOORS
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12735118
BONDING STRUCTURE EFFICIENTLY
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12725871
PROTECTIVE CASE AND DRIVE UNIT
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 01, 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
79%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+11.2%)
3y 1m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1580 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