Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/413,832

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MAKING A DECK OF A BRIDGE OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 14, 2021
Examiner
ADDIE, RAYMOND W
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Maadi Group Inc.
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
1274 granted / 1567 resolved
+29.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1610
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.0%
+8.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.5%
-24.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1567 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . 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. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/18/2025 has been entered. 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. Claims 1-2, 24-26, 28-32, 34-35, 51-64, 68-73, 84, 86-87, 96-99 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. Claim 1, last two lines recite “the aluminum deck members and the main bearing structure of the bridge being free of fastening holes to fasten them to one another contradicts the Specification. And Fig. 2 illustrates channel (23) formed along a length dimension of the deck member, the channel (23) configured to receive a portion (52) of the fastening assembly. Therefore, the cited negative limitation is examined as being inclusive of channels/openings capable of receiving a fastener. It is noted none of the dependent claims cited above associate the “structural channel” with the “fastening assembly” for the purpose of fastening the deck member(s) to the “main bearing structure. It is also noted the “fastening assembly” is undefined in the independent claims 1, 84, 86, 87. Therefore, it is vague and indefinite as to how the claimed “fastening assembly” is “configured” to fasten the deck members to the main bearing structure of the bridge. Still further the “main bearing structure of the bridge” is undefined. Hence, it could be a tower, an abutment, a pier and not limited to a girder and the like. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 13-18, 24-26, 28-29, 31, 34, 35, 51-55, 96 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemier et al. US 4,709,435 in view of Szekely US 2006/0037155. Stemier et al. disclose an aluminum bridge deck (10) that is mostly hollow, and includes web members (14, 34) defining a plurality of channels configured to receive a fastening assembly (44, 56) for fastening the deck members to a girder or the like (12). The bridge deck panels being retained together weldlessly upon said girder (12). Figs. 8-13; Col. 3, ln. 3-Col. 6, ln. 20. What Stemier does not disclose is fastening the deck panels individually to the girder without through holes in said girder. However, Szekely teaches a quick connect system for transit boarding platforms mounted on top of a plurality of girders (48). The quick connect system comprising a fastening member (49) and a screw (59). Wherein the quick connect system does not require through holes in the girder. Figs. 1, 5, 6; [0059]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bridge of Stemier et al. with the quick connect system taught by Szekely in order to reduce installation time. With respect to claims 4-8, 11, 13-18, 24-26 Stemier et al. disclose the channels are at least partially defined by said web members (14, 34) having integrally formed connector portions (24, 37) and configured to receive said fastening assembly (44, 56). Although Stemier et al. illustrates the fastening member (56) as a galvanized or stainless-steel hex-head bolts, see Col. 5, lns. 30-66; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the bolts could be T-bolts, as a matter of design choice, because the type of bolt head would be interchangeable and art recognized equivalents. With respect to claims 27-29, 31 Stemier et al. disclose the bridge deck members (14) include side panels and end plates (32, 28) that interlock using filler strips (60, 70) and/or bolts (66). See Figs. 6-7; Col. 5, ln. 65-Col. 6, ln. 20. Stemler et al. further discloses a frictional texture (42) disposed on a traffic surface (16) of the deck members. With respect to claims 34, 35 Stemler et al. disclose the fastening assembly comprises a plurality of clamps (44) configured to clamp the deck members to the girder (12). With respect to claims 51-55 Stemler et al. disclose the use of bearing pads (54) and shims (58) which guard against galvanic corrosion between aluminum deck members and steel girders (12). Col. 5, lns. 30-65. Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemier et al. US 4,709,435 in view of Szekely US 2006/0037155 as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Svensson US 5,033,147. Stemier et al. in view of Szekely disclose a bridge system comprising: an aluminum bridge deck (10) that is mostly hollow, and includes web members (14, 34) defining a plurality of channels configured to receive a fastening assembly (44, 56) for fastening the deck members to a girder or the like (12). The bridge deck panels being retained together weldlessly upon said girder (12). The fastening assembly not requiring through holes in the bridge deck or the girder for fastening. What Stemier et al. in view of Szekely do not disclose is connecting adjacent bridge deck members together without bolts. However, Svensson teaches a similar bridge deck assembly comprising aluminum webbed deck members (1, 2) wherein adjacent interlocking sides of said deck members comprise tongue and groove joints (8, 9, 10) and fastener connecting features (14, 15) configured to receive fastening clamps (16). See Figs. 1-6; Abstract; Col. 3, ln. 63-Col. 4, ln. 35. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the bolts (62, 66) and attachment plates (28, 32) of Stemier et al. in view of Szekely with the tongue and groove interlocking features taught by Svensson in order to facilitate in situ assembly, prevent leaks and reduce maintenance by eliminating filler strips (64). Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemier et al. US 4,709,435 in view of Szekely US 2006/0037155 as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Henshue et al. US 9,895,284. Stemier et al. in view of Szekely disclose a bridge system comprising: an aluminum bridge deck (10) that is mostly hollow, and includes web members (14, 34) defining a plurality of channels configured to receive a fastening assembly (44, 56) for fastening the deck members to a girder or the like (12). The bridge deck panels having a texture coating for wear, skid, corrosion and fatigue resistance. See Col. 4, ln. 60-Col. 5, ln. 9. What Stemier et al. in view of Szekely do not disclose is an extruded aluminum deck panel having a grooved top surface. However, Henshue et al. teach a traffic panel (113) for use adjacent pedestrian crossings, roadway curbs, railway platforms, stairs, ramps, escalators etc. The traffic panels include a plurality of linear protrusions & other guiding patterns relevant to the direction of pedestrian travel. Col. 16, ln. 35-Col. 17, ln. 60. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the extruded bridge deck panels of Stemier et al. in view of Szekely with a grooved traffic surface, as taught by Henshue et al. in order to improve safety by tactile sensation of pedestrian traffic flow to drivers and pedestrians alike. Claim(s) 56-64, 68, 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemier et al. US 4,709,435 in view of Szekely US 2006/0037155 as applied to claim 55 above, and further in view of Derechin US 5,457,840. Stemier et al. in view of Szekely disclose a bridge system comprising: an aluminum bridge deck (10) that is mostly hollow, and includes web members (14, 34) defining a plurality of channels configured to receive a fastening assembly (44, 56) for fastening the deck members to a girder or the like (12). Wherein the deck members and girders are of different types of metal and susceptible to corrosion, corrosion inhibiting bearing pads (54) and shims (58) are positioned on top of the girder’s top flange. Col. 5, ln. 30-Col. 6, ln. 2. However, Derechin teaches it is known to dispose an intermediary material (28) between I-beam girders and a connecting member (20) on a bottom surface of the top flange (30b) of the I-beam and between the top of the I-beam and a channel member (18) fastened to the I-beam. The intermediary material being anti-corrosive, dielectric and friction enhancing. Which may include paint or galvanized materials. Col. 2, ln. 64-Col. 3, ln. 11, Col. 4, lns. 13-50. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the extruded bridge deck panels of Stemier et al. in view of Szekely with an anti-corrosion paint or the like as taught by Derechin in order to operate in humid environs. Claim(s) 56, 68, 69, 71-73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemier et al. US 4,709,435 in view of Szekely US 2006/0037155 as applied to claim 68 above, and further in view of Twomey et al. US 2017/0144270. Stemier et al. in view of Szekely disclose a bridge system comprising: an aluminum bridge deck (10) that is mostly hollow, and includes web members (14, 34) defining a plurality of channels configured to receive a fastening assembly (44, 56) for fastening the deck members to a girder or the like (12). Wherein the deck members and girders are of different types of metal and susceptible to corrosion, corrosion inhibiting bearing pads (54) and shims (58) are positioned on top of the girder’s top flange. Col. 5, ln. 30-Col. 6, ln. 2. Stemler et al. in view of Szekely do not disclose a corrosion resistant coating. However, Twomey et al. teach a method for producing corrosion-inhibiting/adhesion-promoting coatings for use with metal substrates, the coatings including thermoset or thermoplastic matrix and metallic oxide particles. [0039-0044]. The coatings being effective in extending the life span of large scale, metallic civil engineering structures, such as girders, walls, etc. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fastener assembly Stemier et al. in view of Szekely with the corrosion resistant coating of Twomey et al. in order to reduce wear and corrosion. Claim(s) 56, 68-70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemier et al. US 4,709,435 in view of Szekely US 2006/0037155 as applied to claim 68 above, and further in view of Kanayama et al. FR 2,541,672. Stemier et al. in view of Szekely disclose a bridge system comprising: an aluminum bridge deck (10) that is mostly hollow, and includes web members (14, 34) defining a plurality of channels configured to receive a fastening assembly (44, 56) for fastening the deck members to a girder or the like (12). Wherein the deck members and girders are of different types of metal and susceptible to corrosion, corrosion inhibiting bearing pads (54) and shims (58) are positioned on top of the girder’s top flange. Col. 5, ln. 30-Col. 6, ln. 2. Stemler et al. in view of Szekely do not disclose a corrosion resistant coating. However, Kanayama et al. teach an “anti-corrosion coating composition comprising a granulated blast furnace slag of specific particle size and a polymer emulsion”. Wherein the anti-corrosion coating can be used on steel structures, public works structures etc. because they exhibit superior durability, abrasion resistance and improved corrosion resistance service life. See Page 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fastener assembly Stemier et al. in view of Szekely with the corrosion resistant coating of Kanayama et al. in order to reduce wear and corrosion. Claim(s) 84, 86, 87, 97-99 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemler et al. US 4,709,435 in view of Twomey et al. US 2017/0144270. Stemler et al. disclose a bridge system comprising: an aluminum bridge deck (10) that is mostly hollow, and includes web members (14, 34) defining a plurality of channels configured to receive a fastening assembly (44, 56) for fastening the deck members to a girder or the like (12). Wherein the deck members and girders are of different types of metal and susceptible to corrosion, corrosion inhibiting bearing pads (54) and shims (58) are positioned on top of the girder’s top flange. Col. 5, ln. 30-Col. 6, ln. 2. Stemler et al. do not disclose a corrosion resistant coating. However, Twomey et al. teach a method for producing corrosion-inhibiting/adhesion-promoting coatings for use with metal substrates, the coatings including thermoset or thermoplastic matrix and metallic oxide particles. [0039-0044]. The coatings being effective in extending the life span of large scale, metallic civil engineering structures, such as girders, walls, etc. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fastener assembly Stemier et al with the corrosion resistant coating of Twomey et al. in order to reduce wear and corrosion. Response to Amendment Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 84, 86, 87 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6986. The examiner can normally be reached on m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm. 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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 571-272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you need help from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RAYMOND W ADDIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 9/26/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 14, 2021
Application Filed
Apr 18, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Nov 13, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 06, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 11, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 17, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 23, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601120
OBTAINING PAVING MATERIAL MAT CHARACTERISTICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594639
WALK BEHIND GRINDING TOOL WITH HORIZONTALLY ALIGNED GUIDES AND GRINDING DRUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590425
INTELLIGENT REINFORCING SUPPORT FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE LOW-BOX GIRDERS AND METHOD FOR MINIMALLY INVASIVE REINFORCEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583622
PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584283
GROUND COMPACTING MACHINE WITH A VIBRATION DAMPING ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+8.2%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1567 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