Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/862,356

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, RECREATIONAL TRAILER, ASSEMBLY FOR SPECIFIYING PARKING AREAS FOR RECREATIONAL TRAILERS, AND SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A RECREATIONAL TRAILER

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 01, 2024
Examiner
WANG, YI-KAI
Art Unit
3747
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Erwin Hymer Group SE
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
390 granted / 467 resolved
+13.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
485
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
53.6%
+13.6% vs TC avg
§102
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 467 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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the coupling sensor in Claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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. Claim Objections Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding to Claim 1, based on the description of the dependent claims, the examiner would suggest the Applicant to amend “Leisure vehicle” to recite as “A recreational vehicle.” Regarding to Claims 2-7, “Recreational vehicle” should be amended to recite as “The recreational vehicle” 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. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greenwood (US2019/0161118 A1). Regarding to Claim 1, Greenwood teaches leisure vehicle, in particular leisure trailer, in particular caravan or trailer with a living space that can be created when parked, with a chassis, a structure connected to the chassis and at least one on the chassis arranged, electrically driven wheel (the examiner considered all the above descriptions are mere preamble, Paragraph 76), characterized in that environmental detection sensors are provided (Paragraph 78), which detect an environment of the structure and/or when parking and/or leaving a parking space of the chassis detect that at least one detection device is provided for detecting at least one position signal (Fig. 12, Part 205, Paragraph 139. Based on the teachings of Paragraph 138, the structures and the parts would be taught in Figs. 1-7, and at least Paragraphs 76-99), which emanates from an external position transmitting element during parking and/or parking operation and in that a control is provided which is designed to at least indirectly control the at least one wheel in the parking and/or parking operation in such a way that automatic parking and/or parking with respect to the at least one position signal is made possible and at the same time a collision of the body and/or the chassis with the environment is prevented by means of the environment detection sensors (Fig. 12, Paragraphs 10, 138-144. Paragraph 10 teaches the function of the Part 205, and Paragraphs 138-144 teach the operation which would reflect the limitations of the claimed invention). Regarding to Claim 3, Greenwood teaches recreational vehicle, characterized in that the control has a user interface via which a user can intervene, in particular abort the parking and/or exit operation (Fig. 1, Part 37, Paragraphs 97-99, and based on the teachings of Paragraph 138, the teachings of the Paragraphs 97-99 can be applied to the embodiment of Fig. 12). Regarding to Claim 4, Greenwood teaches recreational vehicle, characterized in that the control is designed at the beginning of an on and/or Parking operation to determine whether collision-free automatic parking and/or parking is possible in relation to the at least one position signal (Paragraphs 10, 138-144). Regarding to Claim 8, Greenwood teaches arrangement for specifying parking spaces for recreational vehicles. in particular recreational trailers, which are designed according claim 1, with a plurality of position transmitting elements which are for-and/or parking operations of the recreational vehicles send out position signals which specify the parking spaces, with at least one position transmitting element being arranged at each parking space to specify the parking spaces (Paragraph 85, the examiner considered the teachings would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation). Regarding to Claim 9, Greenwood teaches system with a recreational vehicle, in particular a recreational trailer, according to claim 1 and at least one external position transmitting element which is used for parking and/or parking in the surrounding area of the structure and/or the chassis can be arranged (Paragraphs 10, 138-144, Please see the rejection of Claim 1, which can also be applied to Claim 9). Regarding to Claim 10, Greenwood teaches method for parking in and/or out of a parking space, in particular for parking in and/or out of a campsite and/or for producing and/or maintaining and/or storing a recreational vehicle, in particular a recreational trailer, according to claim 1, wherein a movement of the recreational vehicle is carried out by means of the parking and/or parking operation by means of at least one external position transmitting element ((Paragraphs 10, 138-144, Please see the rejection of Claim 1, which can also be applied to Claim 10). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood (US2019/0161118 A1) in view of Carter (US2019/0235519 A1). Regarding to Claim 2, Greenwood fails to explicitly disclose, but Carter teaches recreational vehicle, characterized in that the position signal is based on a near-field communication, in particular a Bluetooth-based near-field communication [Carter teaches the signal is Bluetooth-based to allow the signal to be sent wirelessly (Carter, Paragraph 30).] It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenwood to incorporate the teachings of Carter to use Bluetooth-based way to sent signal in order to allow the signal to be sent wirelessly (Carter, Paragraph 30). Claims 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood (US2019/0161118 A1) in view of Lavoie (US2020/0097001 A1). Regarding to Claim 5, Greenwood fails to explicitly disclose, but Lavoie teaches recreational vehicle, characterized in that the control is designed to carry out a coupling process to a towing vehicle, with at least one position signal from at least one position transmitting element provided on the towing vehicle can be detected and wherein a coupling element is finely positioned on a coupling element of the towing vehicle by means of a coupling sensor [Lavoie teaches a vehicle comprises a hitch to connect a trailer, and the hitch comprises a coupling sensor (Lovie, Fig. 1, Part 106) to detect certain parameters of the trailer (Lovie, Paragraph 23, which would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).] It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenwood to incorporate the teachings of Lovie to add a coupling sensor on the hitch of the vehicle in order to detect certain parameters of the trailer (Lovie, Paragraph 23). Regarding to Claim 6, Greenwood in view of Lovie teaches the modified recreational vehicle, characterized in that the clutch sensor has a reed contact and/or a magnetic switch and/or a button (Lovie, Paragraph 23). Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood (US2019/0161118 A1) in view of Segard (US2015/0035252 A1). Regarding to Claim 7, Greenwood fails to explicitly disclose, but Segard teaches recreational vehicle, characterized in that an electric drive and an accumulator, in particular a trailer accumulator, are provided for the electric drive, that at least two wheels are driven by the electric drive and that the electric drive, the accumulator and the electrically driven wheels are designed so that an extension of the range is possible when traveling [Carter teaches a trailer can be an auxiliary power to couple to the vehicle to extend the driving range of the vehicle (Segard, Paragraph 5, based on the teachings, it would be known at least two wheel of the vehicle can be driven by electric power).] It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenwood to incorporate the teachings of Segard to design the trailer as an auxiliary power when coupling with the vehicle in order to extend the driving range of the vehicle (Segard, Paragraph 5). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-KAI WANG whose telephone number is (313)446-6613. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible. 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 5712721196. 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. /YI-KAI WANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 01, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601317
LOW EMISSION ADSORBENT AND CANISTER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594993
VEHICLE CONTROL DEVICE, VEHICLE CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590559
NACELLE INLET DUCT FOR A DUCTED FAN ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583453
VEHICULAR TRAILERING ASSIST SYSTEM WITH DRIVER MONITORING AND GESTURE DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585515
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DISTRIBUTED SYSTEM STATE ESTIMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
84%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+9.3%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 467 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