Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 06, 2026
Application No. 19/215,831

VACUUM TANK DOOR LATCHING ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
May 22, 2025
Priority
May 30, 2024 — provisional 63/653,533
Examiner
SMALLEY, JAMES N
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
The Charles Machine Works Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 7m
Est. Remaining
60%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allowance Rate
933 granted / 1323 resolved
+0.5% vs TC avg
Minimal -10% lift
Without
With
+-10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1358
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.0%
+1.0% vs TC avg
§102
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
§112
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1323 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 1. 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. 2. Claims 5-20 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. Regarding claim 5, the phrase “one and only one” is indefinite because it is redundant. Applicant should amend the claim to simply say “only one”. Regarding each of claims 5-17 and 20, the transitional phrase “in which” is not one of the recognized transitional phrases in the MPEP 2111.03, and is thus interpreted “in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended.” To the best degree the Examiner understands the claimed invention, the term “in which” should be open ended, and interpreted similar to “comprising”. Applicant is encouraged to amend the transitional phrase to that which provides the desired claim scope. Regarding claim 17, from which claims 18-20 depend, the term “the actuator” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims, and appears to refer back to “a single actuator”. Further regarding claim 17, the phrase “a pair of shackles, each of the pair of shackles” is indefinite because it is not clear if there are multiple pairs being claimed. Examiner suggests amending the claim to say, “a pair of shackles, each of the shackles”. Allowable Subject Matter 3. Claims 1-4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. 4. Claims 5-16 are would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 5. Claims 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. 6. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest references the Examiner was able to locate were: a) US 9,896,184 (Brown) which teaches a rotating shaft (8) and hooks (12) but fails to teach the hooks pivotally attached to tabs which are rotatably attached to the shaft. b) US 9,821,953 (Sewell) which teaches a vacuum tank (1) with a hinged door (3) and a shaft (54) but fails to teach tabs rotatably attached to the shaft, and hooks pivotally attached to the tabs. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm. 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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. /JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 22, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12692052
QUICK-FILL BEVERAGE CONTAINER LID
2y 0m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12686228
Multi-Piece Lid for Paint Pails and Other Pail Shaped Containers
2y 3m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12679611
Vented Dispensing Liner
2y 4m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12679472
SEALING PLUG
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12662859
ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM FOR STORAGE BOX AND ADJUSTMENT DEVICE
1y 10m to grant Granted Jun 23, 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
70%
Grant Probability
60%
With Interview (-10.0%)
2y 9m (~1y 7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1323 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