Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/272,974

FACILITY PROTECTION COVER AND FACILITY PROTECTION STRUCTURE USING SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 18, 2023
Examiner
RISIC, ABIGAIL ANNE
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
DENSO CORPORATION
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
852 granted / 1101 resolved
+25.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1125
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
53.3%
+13.3% vs TC avg
§102
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
§112
9.9%
-30.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1101 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. Claim(s) 1, 3, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kihara (JP2002-233019). Regarding claim 1, Kihara teaches a facility protection cover that is configured to be disposed on a concrete foundation (5) and to cover a facility device (2,3) disposed between the facility protection cover (10a) and the concrete foundation (5), the facility protection cover comprising: including a fiber-reinforced composite (paragraph [0007]); a cover body (10a), the cover body including: two legs that are spaced apart from each other so as to be located on opposite sides of a facility device placement space (See Figure 1, legs on either side of 2,3), the facility device placement space being configured to accommodate the facility device; and a bridging portion that bridges the two legs so as to extend over the facility device placement space (Figure 3), wherein the cover body is configured to transmit a weight of a vehicle loaded on the cover body to the concrete foundation via the two legs, and restrict a separating relative movement of the two legs along a placement surface of the concrete foundation when the weight of the vehicle is loaded on the bridging portion. Since the cover is located between the boundary curb (9) and the roadbed (8) which would restrict the movement of the legs along the pavement surface when receiving the weight of a vehicle on the bridging portion. Kihara fails to explicitly teach the cover is a fiber reinforced cement composite. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to make the cover of Kihara a fiber reinforced cement composite, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Regarding claim 3, Kihara teaches the two legs respectively include edge-side surfaces on far sides, each leg being configured such that the edge-side surface comes into contact with a shoulder portion (9 and 8) protruding from the placement surface (5). Regarding claim 8, Kihara teaches the cover body is a precast concrete member (paragraph [0007]). Regarding claim 9, Kihara fails to teach the cover is a high performance fiber-reinforced cement composite (HPFRCC). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to make the cover of Kihara a high performance fiber-reinforced cement composite (HPFRCC), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 4-7, 10-18 are 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. The closest prior art fails to teach the legs and placement surface have non-flat portions that engage with each other. The prior art teaches an integral structure and there is not a reason that one of ordinary skill in in the art would find without improper hindsight to modify the structure of Kihara to include non-flat surfaces that engage with one another. Further the prior art fails to teach a tension resistant means connected to the legs or that the cover is embedded in the pavement body foundation. These limitations in combination with the remaining limitations read over the prior art. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Wong teaches a protection cover for a roadway. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th. 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 at 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 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. /ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 March 6, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 18, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601125
BLOCK COMPACTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589327
Race Start Gate Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584275
HEATED SURFACE FOR MELTING SNOW AND ICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583695
DOCK LEVELER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577749
COMPACTION-BASED DYNAMIC AUTOMATED COMPACTION PLAN
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+7.5%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1101 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