Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 35/522,927

Platform enclosure for elevators and hoists

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 23, 2024
Examiner
BENDEL, CARSON JEAN
Art Unit
2964
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Takler S R L
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
100%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 6m
To Grant
0%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 100% — above average
100%
Career Allow Rate
19 granted / 19 resolved
+40.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -100% lift
Without
With
+-100.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 6m
Avg Prosecution
1 currently pending
Career history
20
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§102
5.3%
-34.7% vs TC avg
§112
94.7%
+54.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 19 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
Detailed Office Action The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Refusal under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) The claim is refused under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim is indefinite and non-enabling due to the following: The visual disclosure is inadequate such that the appearance and shape or configuration of the design for which protection is sought cannot be determined or understood (MPEP § 1504.04). Specifically, the shape or configuration of the portion shown at the end of the platform enclosure cannot be determined or understood from the views provided due to inconsistencies between Figures 1.1 and 1.4. There is a change of thickness in the lines in Figure 1.1; however, there is no change in line thickness in Figure 1.4. It is unclear if there is a change in shape being indicated in Figure 1.1, or if there is potentially a drafting error. See the annotated figures below: PNG media_image1.png 1283 1271 media_image1.png Greyscale The shape or configuration of the portion shown at the other end of the platform enclosure cannot be determined or understood because of inconsistencies between Figures 1.1, 1.4, and 1.8. The seam of the portion extends further in Figure 1.4 than what is shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.8. See the annotated figures below: PNG media_image2.png 2034 1645 media_image2.png Greyscale The shape or configuration of the portion shown in Figure 1.5 cannot be determined, because it does not correlate with what is shown in Figure 1.6. There is a portion that sticks out in Figure 1.5; however, there is no portion shown sticking out in Figure 1.6. See the annotated figures below: PNG media_image3.png 453 1386 media_image3.png Greyscale The thick, merging lines obscure the portion shown in Figure 1.7, such that it’s shape or configuration cannot be determined or understood. Additionally, it’s depth or location inside the platform enclosure cannot be determined from the views provided. See the annotated figures below: PNG media_image4.png 919 1126 media_image4.png Greyscale There is an inconsistency between Figures 1.7 and 1.9. Figure 1.7 shows shading inside the platform enclosure, which indicates a solid surface; however, there is no shading in this area in Figure 1.9, which makes it appear to be open. In addition, it cannot be determined or understood where the inner surfaces shown in Figures 1.7 and 1.6 are placed inside. Are we seeing the same portion through both ends, or are there two separate surfaces inside? Do the surfaces shown in Figures 1.6 and 1.7 exist at the very end of the platform enclosure, or somewhere inside? These questions cannot be answered from the views provided. See the annotated images below: PNG media_image5.png 724 1274 media_image5.png Greyscale To overcome this refusal, it is suggested that applicant submit new reproductions of the claimed design that show the design clearly and consistently. The line quality should be improved to show the obscured areas more clearly. Applicant could include additional enlarged views to show obscured details more clearly. If certain non-enabled portions of the design cannot be fully enabled without the introduction of new matter, applicant may disclaim the areas or portions of the design that are considered indefinite and nonenabling by converting them to broken lines. Replacement Reproductions Any amended replacement reproduction 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 reproduction should not be labeled as “amended.” If a 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 reproductions for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each reproduction 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. When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). Conclusion The claimed design is refused under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) as set forth above. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carson Bendel whose telephone number is (571)270-0879. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30am-5pm ET. 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, Shawn Gingrich can be reached at (571)270-0218. 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. /C.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2934 /T Chase NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2926
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 23, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1105686
Folding Trailer
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1105683
Drainage Dish Rack
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104385
VACUUM CLEANER FLOOR TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent D1103527
Dust Bag Connector Plate
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent D1102070
VACUUM CLEANER FLOOR TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
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
100%
Grant Probability
0%
With Interview (-100.0%)
1y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 19 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