Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/600,525

Column Shoe Manufactured From One Piece of Sheet Metal

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Sep 30, 2021
Examiner
HIJAZ, OMAR F
Art Unit
3635
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Simpson Strong-Tie A/S
OA Round
4 (Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
422 granted / 759 resolved
+3.6% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+34.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
60 currently pending
Career history
819
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
§112
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 759 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION The Amendment filed on 11/04/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1, 11, 12, and 14 has/have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-15 are now pending in the application. Response to Amendment The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In particular, the limitation “wherein the at least three layers are substantially parallel” would overcome the prior art rejection since no prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches this configuration and any modification such that planar surfaces of the at least layers are substantially parallel, in combination with the new limitations regarding the width axis being narrower than the overall width, would require modifying the modifier reference which would involve hindsight reconstruction. Claim(s) 3-13 depend from claim 2 and are therefore objected to as well. 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. Claim(s) 1, 14, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colonias et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,995,206). Regarding claim 1, Colonias et al. teaches a bent column shoe connection (abstract) between a post (4) and a concrete block (3) made with a bent column shoe (1) formed from one piece of sheet metal (abstract) with a material thickness (thickness of the sheet metal; figures 2-3), the sheet metal having a first side and a second side (opposing sides of the sheet; figure 2), the bent column shoe comprising: an anchor section (at 8) with a longitudinal axis and a width axis (x and y axes; figure 2), wherein the anchor section has a first end (at 30) and a second end (at 14), a supporting section (at 16/17) with a first supporting end (bottom end of 16/17) and a second supporting end (top end of 16/17), wherein the first supporting end is in extension of the second end of the anchor section (figure 2), a support section (at 1) with a support face (18/19), arranged substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the anchor section (figure 2), and wherein the support section is arranged in extension of the supporting section (figure 2), and at least one fastening face (inner face of 21; figure 2) arranged substantially perpendicular to the support face (figure 2), and wherein the anchor section, the supporting section, the support section and the at least one fastening face are of one and the same piece of sheet metal (figure 2), characterized in that the anchor section, measured along the width axis, comprises at least three layers of the sheet metal (10, 6, 7, 11, 36, 38) arranged to provide at least three times the material thickness relative to the support section measured along the longitudinal axis (figure 1) and the anchor section measured along the width axis is substantially narrower than the bent column shoe measured along the width axis (figure 1) and the at least three layers of sheet metal are connected along bends along the longitudinal axis that are greater than 90 degrees (as illustrated, the at least three layers of sheet metal are connected along bends along the longitudinal axis that are greater than 90 degrees; depending on the reference direction, the bends can equivalently be expressed as being greater than 90 degrees when measured from the opposite side or the supplemental exterior angles); wherein - the anchor section is at least partially embedded in the concrete block with the support section (figure 6) and the at least one fastening face is disposed above a surface of the concrete block (figure 6), and the post stands on the support face and is attached to the at least one fastening face (figure 1). With regards to the limitation that the product is “manufactured from one and the same piece of sheet metal”, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Colonias et al. teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113. Regarding claim 14, the limitation that the product is formed by a “[m]ethod of manufacturing a bent column shoe according to claim 1 wherein the bent column shoe is manufactured from a base material that is rolled on a coil and the base material of the coil unrolls along a longitudinal axis of the base material, and the column shoe is manufactured having the longitudinal axis of the anchor section arranged transversely to the longitudinal axis of the base material during the bending of the entire column shoe”, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Colonias et al. teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113. Regarding claim 15, the limitation that the product is formed “wherein column shoes having support sections of differing widths can be formed from the same base material”, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Colonias et al. teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant’s amendment regarding the at least three layers of sheet metal are connected along bends along the longitudinal axis that are greater than 90 degrees, has been considered. The limitation remains rejected over Colonias et al. since under broadest reasonable interpretation, the bends can be measured both by interior and exterior angles, depending on a frame of reference. Since Colonias et al. teaches the connections along bends along the longitudinal axis that are greater than 90 degrees, whereby the bends can equivalently be expressed as being greater than 90 degrees when measured from the reverse side, the limitation is met. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. 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 would like assistance 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. /OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 30, 2021
Application Filed
Feb 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Sep 03, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 24, 2024
Final Rejection — §102
Mar 25, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Nov 04, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601183
THERMAL INSULATION PAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595663
PREFABRICATED FRAMES FOR MASONRY SLIPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597881
Fixed-tilt solar arrays and related systems
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577789
Tile Panel, Surface Covering of a Multitude of Such Tile Panels for a Floor, Ceiling or Wall Surface
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565781
FORMWORK WALL PANEL AND FORMWORK ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
56%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+34.8%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 759 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