Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/939,865

Loading, Tank or Service Flap

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 07, 2024
Priority
Nov 17, 2023 — DE 10 2023 132 142.0
Examiner
DOUGLAS, STEVEN O
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Illinois Tool Works Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 4m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allowance Rate
1245 granted / 1575 resolved
+19.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
1583
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
43.2%
+3.2% vs TC avg
§102
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
§112
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1575 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In regard to claim 1, Applicant has failed to reasonably covey to one of ordinary skill in the art the structure intended by an actuator that “can be moved relative to the carrier between a resting and an actuation position to generate a signal for opening or closing the charging, fueling, or service flap when the actuator is moved into the actuation position” (see lines 11-14). The Office as carefully inspected the specification and fails to see that Applicant has reasonable covey such limitations. Clarification is respectfully requested. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In regard to claim 1, Applicant’s repeated use of the phrase “can be” in lines 2 and 11 renders the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be readily ascertained; the use of such phrase should be avoided. In regard to claim 7, Applicant’s use of the term “preferably” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be readily ascertained; the use of such term should be avoided. In regard to claim 8, Applicant’s use of the phrase “can be” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be readily ascertained; the use of such phrase should be avoided. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the Tani et al, Och et al. and Beck references pertain to various vehicle compartments with associated actuators to facilitate access to such compartments, but fail to disclose associated actuators that generate some sort of signal for opening and close access to such compartments. . 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

Nov 07, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12679186
Motor vehicle comprising a roof module and a vehicle body
3y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12679259
REINFORCEMENT STRUCTURE FOR REAR SEAT INTERIM PORTION
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12678353
THIN PROFILE RETRACTOR
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12679276
STORAGE DEVICE FOR SECURELY STORING OBJECTS IN A MOTOR VEHICLE
2y 4m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12679469
VEHICLE BODY FRONT STRUCTUREE
2y 0m 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
79%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+11.2%)
3y 1m (~1y 4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1575 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