Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/204,075

CURB GUARD

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
May 31, 2023
Examiner
HARTMANN, GARY S
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Ideal Shield Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
903 granted / 1244 resolved
+20.6% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1291
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.2%
+5.2% vs TC avg
§102
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§112
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1244 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 9 and 16 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. Each of claims 9 and 16 recites only a process (“extruded”), which is an improper process of making recitation within a product claim. 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 1, 2 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fredericks (U.S. Patent 3,957,383). Fredericks discloses a guard (20) for a curb (15), the guard (20) having a sheet (column 4, lines 21-22, for example) of plastic material (fiberglass, for example) having a thickness, length and width (Figure 1, for example). A first lengthwise portion (22) overlaps at least part of the upper surface of the curb and a second lengthwise portion (21) overlaps with at least part of the side surface of the curb (Figure 2b, for example). The first portion is fastened to the upper surface of the curb (via 35, Figure 2d, for example). Regarding claim 2, the material conforms to the curb (Figure 2b, for example). Regarding claim 7, the width includes portions of the claimed range (column 2, lines 31-32). Regarding claim 8, the length is in the claimed range (column 2, line 31). Regarding claim 9, because the guard could have been made in the manner claimed, recitations are met. Note the 112 rejection, above. Regarding claim 10, the fasteners penetrate the curb material (Figure 2d). 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 3-6 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredericks (U.S. Patent 3,957,383), as applied above. Regarding claim 3, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to use ribs on upper surfaces of curb coverings in order to increase traction. For at least this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Fredericks as claimed. Regarding claim 4, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to position ribs along horizontal roadside surfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Fredericks in this manner in order to, for example, reflect light from traffic to illuminate the curb; thereby increasing safety, as is known in the art. Regarding claims 5 and 12, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to use inner ribs on coverings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Fredericks as claimed in order to increase the underside surface area; thereby improving adhesion with the applied resin. Regarding claims 6 and 13, the thickness of Fredericks is about 1/16 inches below the claimed range; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the thickness to be within the range in order to better shield from impact forces, as is the purpose of Fredericks. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach curb guards. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30. 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, Thomas Will can be reached at 571272-6998. 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. GARY S. HARTMANN Primary Examiner Art Unit 3671 /GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 31, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601180
STAIRCASE WHEELCHAIR RAMP ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601127
IMPACT DISSIPATING BOLLARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590426
CRAWLER BRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590423
EDGE SLUMP CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584278
IMPACT ABSORBING POST
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+18.4%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1244 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