Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/042,708

WHEEL TRAP

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 31, 2025
Examiner
BOSWELL, CHRISTOPHER J
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
755 granted / 1129 resolved
+14.9% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1166
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
§102
48.9%
+8.9% vs TC avg
§112
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1129 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 Objections Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 appears to have the character “\” erroneous included in the limitation. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 11 is 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. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first curved plate" and “the second curved plate” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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) 1-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0050999 to Milner et al. Milner et al. disclose a wheel trap apparatus comprising: a first plate assembly (1); a second plate assembly (2); a first brace assembly (9) operably coupled to a first portion of the first plate assembly and operably coupled with a second portion of the first plate assembly; a second brace assembly (portion of 2 connected to 12) operably coupled to a first portion of the second plate assembly and operably coupled to a second portion of the second plate; and a gear assembly (16) operable to move the first plate assembly with respect to the second plate assembly so that a first surface (surface 4 of 1) of the first plate assembly engages a first portion of a wheel and a second surface (surface 4 of 2) of the second plate assembly engages a second portion of a wheel, as in claim 1. Milner et al. also disclose the first brace assembly is pivotally engaged with the first portion of the first plate assembly and pivotally engaged with the second portion of the first plate assembly (via pivot 11), as in claim 2, wherein the first plate assembly comprises a first curved plate (curved portion that contacts the tire, shown in figure 1), as in claim 3, and the first plate assembly comprises a second curve plate (curved portion that contacts the tire, shown in figure 1), as in claim 4, as well as the first brace assembly comprises a telescopic assembly(7, 8), the telescopic assembly comprising a first bracing member telescopically engaged with a second bracing member (figure 1), as in claim 5. Milner et al. further disclose the gear assembly is operably coupled to the first brace assembly and the second brace assembly (figure 2), as in claim 6, wherein the gear assembly comprises a gearing assembly handle (13), as in claim 7, and the gear assembly handle is operable to move the first plate assembly with respect to the second plate assembly (paragraph 90), as in claim 8, as well as the gear assembly comprises a worm gear assembly (24 functions as a worm gear), as in claim 9. Milner et al. additionally disclose 10. The wheel trap apparatus of claim 6 wherein the gear assembly comprises a rack and pinion assembly (24, 26), as in claim 10, wherein the first plate assembly comprises a third curved plate (curved portion that contacts the tire, shown in figure 1; the claim does not depend from the claim that originally claims a curved plate), as in claim 12, and the third curved plate comprises a stationary curved plate (curved portion that contacts the tire, shown in figure 1; the claim does not depend from the claim that originally claims a curved plate), as in claim 13, as well as the first curved plate is pivotally hinged to the second curved plate (plate assembly 1 is pivotally connected to plate assembly 2 via 11), as in claim 11. Milner et al. also disclose the first brace assembly comprises a first male telescoping cylinder (7) engaged with a first female telescoping cylinder (8), as in claim 14, wherein the first male telescoping cylinder is spring biased within the first female telescoping cylinder (via 21), as in claim 15, and the first brace assembly further comprising a first pushbutton assembly (43), as in claim 17, as well as operation of the first pushbutton assembly enables the first male telescoping cylinder to rotate with respect to the first brace assembly (actuation of 43 allows the telescoping cylinders to move relative to each other), as in claim 18, and the first plate further comprises a first high friction layer (slatted portion shown in figures 1 and 2), as in claim 19, the first plate assembly further comprises a foldable first plate (embodiment in figure 7 having 58 foldable to plate 63), as in claim 20. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milner et al., as applied above. Milner et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed. However, Milner et al. do not disclose a second telescoping member. It is common knowledge in the prior art to incorporate additional support structures in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of sturdy construction to prevent separation from the given application. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first brace assembly include a second male telescoping cylinder engaged with a second female telescoping cylinder in order to have stronger construction to thwart unauthorized removal thereof. Duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to wheel locks: U.S. Patent Number 6,425,465 to Tallman et al.; U.S. Patent Number 5,263,553 to Duncan; U.S. Patent Number 4,804,070 to Bohler; U.S. Patent Number 3,695,071 to West; U.S. Patent Number 2,773,564 to Garard, Sr.; U.S. Patent Number 2,475,111 to Ridland; U.S. Patent Number 1,174,410 to Hajasok et al.; U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2025/0222906 to Kavanagh et al.; U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0029104 to Hu. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7054. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9-4; F 9-12. 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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at 571-272-7376. 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. /CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 CJB /cb/ February 10, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 31, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12577827
SAFE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577809
LOCK APPARATUSES WITH SECONDARY LOCKING MECHANISMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577810
DISPENSER LOCKING ASSEMBLIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577805
LOCK ASSEMBLY AND METHOD OF INSTALLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577812
SECURITY TAG HOLDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+26.7%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1129 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month