Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 35/523,026

Serving trolley

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 20, 2023
Examiner
WEIR, DAVID A
Art Unit
2938
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Craster Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
100%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 100% — above average
100%
Career Allow Rate
38 granted / 38 resolved
+40.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 6m
Avg Prosecution
1 currently pending
Career history
39
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
4.9%
-35.1% vs TC avg
§102
14.6%
-25.4% vs TC avg
§112
80.5%
+40.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 38 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 . CLAIMED FOREIGN PRIORITY Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on applications filed in Great Britain on 05/19/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed certified copies of the GB6284410 and GB6284411 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55. In the case of a design application, the certified copy must be filed during the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(g) together with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g), that includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application. If the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction un 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323. RESTRICTION ELECTION Election of Group II was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/20/2025. Group I is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design. SPECIFICATION OBJECTION The statement “The design lies in the shape and configuration of the article shown.” is objected to as being unnecessary, as this is inherently understood, and no description in the specification beyond a brief description of the drawing is necessary. MPEP 1503.01(II) As such, the statement should be removed in its entirety. The numbering for the elected Design No. 2, is objected to for not retaining the figure numbering appearing in the published international registration, in accordance with MPEP 2920.04(b), that states: If designs are cancelled, for example, as a result of a restriction requirement, applicants should not renumber the figures of the remaining design. Therefore, the specification should be corrected, by applying the original numbering for the views. OBJECTION – REPRODUCTIONS The reproductions are objected to because the line weight is thick and merges into thick black masses. The thick lines make it difficult to understand smaller and more-detailed features. Per Hague Rule 9 (2)(a), reproductions shall be of a quality permitting all the details of the industrial design to be clearly distinguished and permitting publication. Correction is required, showing the design with clean, clear, black, well-defined lines, for reproduction purposes and so that the drawings can be easily understood. The numbering of the reproductions is objected to for the same reason as indicated in Item ‘2’ of the specification objection above. Correction is required. When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited be 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). Additional objections and rejections may be identified if better quality drawings are submitted. Corrected drawing sheets 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. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. 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. 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 nonenabling because of the following: Some areas of the Serving Trolley are dark and the details of those areas are not understood. Black is not to be used as shading unless it is meant to be color. Please see examples in the reference image below: PNG media_image1.png 1602 1372 media_image1.png Greyscale There is an inconsistency in the depiction of two shelf support-like elements seen in the left, right, and bottom views. In the side views, the rectangular support-like features, located immediately below the middle and bottom shelves, appear without discernable indication of a change-of-plane vertical edge/line, as anticipated, based on the angled-corner configuration of the feature seen in the bottom view. Please see images below: PNG media_image2.png 1611 1230 media_image2.png Greyscale In the bottom view, there are features that can only be seen in that view, and as such, their three-dimensional configuration, depth, and location/placement relative to adjacent features cannot be understood without making conjectures about their appearance. The features are seen as various straight and circular lines within the gray-shaded areas of the image below: PNG media_image3.png 1144 1578 media_image3.png Greyscale If the design cannot be fully enabled without introducing new matter because certain portions are indefinite, applicant may be able to exclude portions of the design from the claim by converting those portions of the article to broken lines, so long as the amendment meets the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). To overcome the refusal, the aforementioned features could be converted to broken lines. In any attempt to prepare new drawings in an effort to overcome the refusal, care must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121. If features of the claim are reduced to broken lines, then a broken lines statement must be added to the specification to clearly state the purpose of the broken lines in the drawings. It is suggested that the following broken lines statement be added to the specification: --The broken lines are for the purpose of illustrating portions of the Serving Trolley that form no part of the claimed design.-- CONCLUSION The claimed stands refused under 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 DAVID WEIR whose telephone number is (703)756-1997. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm. 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, Richard Kearney can be reached on (571)272-8312. 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. /D.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 2938 /ERICH G HERBERMANN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2916
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 20, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1105698
RAMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1105691
Shopping Cart Wheels with Brake Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1105687
TRAILER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1105688
SHOPPING CART
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1105690
Four Wheels Shopping Cart
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 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
99%
With Interview (+0.0%)
1y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 38 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