Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/570,257

TRANSITIONS FOR JOINING CRASH IMPACT ATTENUATOR SYSTEMS TO FIXED STRUCTURES

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jan 06, 2022
Examiner
FERGUSON, MICHAEL P
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Nutech Ventures
OA Round
4 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
793 granted / 1253 resolved
+11.3% vs TC avg
Strong +74% interview lift
Without
With
+74.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1301
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.7%
+2.7% vs TC avg
§102
25.3%
-14.7% vs TC avg
§112
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1253 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 23, 24 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bronstad (US 2006/0200966). As to claim 23, Bronstad discloses a transition system adapted for securing a roadside safety system to a fixed structure, the transition system comprising: a plate 134 having a forward end and a rearward end, as well as a front face and a rear face, the plate comprising a flat surface which is configured to be conformed to a corresponding surface on the fixed structure 130; and a transition mount 90a adapted to secure a rearward end of the roadside safety system 20 to the forward end of the plate, the transition mount comprising a thrie-beam connector 101,102,103 at a forward end thereof which transitions to a flat surface 92 at a rearward end thereof, the rearward end flat surface of the transition mount being adapted for securement to the forward end of the plate (Figure 9). As to claim 24, Bronstad discloses a transition system comprising a plurality of apertures disposed through the front and rear faces of the plate 134 at its rearward end, the plurality of apertures being adapted to receive mechanical fasteners for securing the plate to the corresponding surface on the fixed structure 130 (Figure 9). As to claim 33, Bronstad discloses a transition system wherein the flat surface 95 of the transition mount 90a is secured to the forward end of the plate 314 by either mechanical fasteners or by one or more welds (Figure 9). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 25-32 and 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronstad in view of Smith et al. (US 6,962,459). As to claims 25-28, Bronstad fails to disclose a transition system wherein the plate includes a taper from about midway along a distance between the forward end of the plate and the rearward end of the plate and extending at an angle rearwardly to the rearward end of the plate; wherein the plate comprises a first width at its forward end and a second width at its rearward end smaller than the first width; and wherein the width of the plate narrows gradually from the first width along the length of the plate to the second width at the rearward end of the plate because of the taper. Smith et al. teach a transition system wherein a plate 68 includes a taper from about midway along a distance between the forward end of the plate and the rearward end of the plate and extending at an angle rearwardly to the rearward end of the plate; wherein the plate comprises a first width at its forward end and a second width at its rearward end smaller than the first width; and wherein the width of the plate narrows gradually from the first width along the length of the plate to the second width at the rearward end of the plate because of the taper; the taper enabling the plate to be securely affixed to a smaller width surface of fixed structure 70, providing for greater utility of the plate (Figure 12a). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Bronstad wherein the plate comprises a taper, as taught by Smith et al., in order to enable the plate to be securely affixed to a smaller width surface of a fixed structure, providing for greater utility of the plate. As to claim 29, Bronstad discloses a transition system wherein the corresponding surface on the fixed structure 130 is also flat, so that the plate 134 flat surface is adapted to lie in a flush manner on the corresponding flat surface on the fixed structure (Figure 9). As to claim 30, Bronstad as modified by Smith et al. discloses a transition system wherein the second width at the rearward end of the plate 134 is adapted to correspond in size to a width of the corresponding flat surface on the fixed structure 130 (Figure 9). As to claim 31, Bronstad as modified by Smith et al. discloses a transition system wherein the taper angle is adapted to the length of the transition plate 90a and to a size of the corresponding flat surface on the fixed structure 130 (Figure 9). As to claim 32, Bronstad discloses a transition system wherein the size of the corresponding flat surface on the fixed structure 130 is one or more of its length, width, or area (Figure 9). As to claim 34, Bronstad fails to disclose a transition system comprising a plurality of reinforcement ribs disposed in spaced relation to one another on the rear face of the plate. Smith et al. teach a transition system comprising a plurality of reinforcement ribs 72 disposed in spaced relation to one another on the rear face of a plate 68; the reinforcement ribs providing for greater rigidity and strength of the plate (Figure 12a). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Bronstad wherein the plate comprises reinforcement ribs, as taught by Smith et al., disposed on the rear face of the plate, in order to provide for greater rigidity and strength of the plate. As to claims 35-38, Bronstad discloses a transition system adapted for securing a roadside safety system to a fixed structure, the transition system comprising: a plate 134 having a forward end and extending along a length to a rearward end, as well as a front face and a rear face; and a transition mount 90a adapted to secure a rearward end of the roadside safety system 20 to the forward end of the plate, the transition mount comprising a thrie-beam connector 101,105,103 at a forward end thereof which transitions to a flat surface 92 at a rearward end thereof, the rearward end flat surface of the transition mount being adapted for securement to the forward end of the plate (Figure 9). Bronstad fails to disclose a transition system comprising a plurality of reinforcement ribs disposed in spaced relation to one another on the rear face of the plate; wherein each of the plurality of reinforcement ribs is disposed along the length of the plate, each of the plurality of reinforcement ribs having a length; wherein the lengths of at least two of the plurality of reinforcement ribs are different from one another; and wherein each of the plurality of reinforcement ribs is comprised of a C-channel construction. Smith et al. teach a transition system comprising a plurality of reinforcement ribs 72 disposed in spaced relation to one another on the rear face of a plate 68; wherein each of the plurality of reinforcement ribs is disposed along the length of the plate, each of the plurality of reinforcement ribs having a length; wherein the lengths of at least two of the plurality of reinforcement ribs are different from one another; and wherein each of the plurality of reinforcement ribs is comprised of a C-channel construction; the reinforcement ribs providing for greater rigidity and strength of the plate (Figure 12a). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Bronstad wherein the plate comprises reinforcement ribs, as taught by Smith et al., disposed on the rear face of the plate, in order to provide for greater rigidity and strength of the plate. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 23-38 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm EST). 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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571)270-5788. 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. 10/18/25 /MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 06, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 21, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
May 01, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 07, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 19, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 16, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jul 28, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601198
PANEL FOR A RACKABLE BARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595819
HINGE SYSTEM WITH ADJUSTABLE RESISTANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584328
MODULAR FENCE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577980
FLOATING JOINT AND ULTRASONIC VIBRATION JOINING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577978
IMPROVED HINGE ASSEMBLY
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+74.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1253 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