Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/348,057

FLOOR PAVEMENT STRUCTURE WITH PASSIVE TEMPERATURE CONTROL

Non-Final OA §102§103§112§DP
Filed
Jul 06, 2023
Examiner
ADDIE, RAYMOND W
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Apt Asia Pacific Pty Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
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

§102 §103 §112 §DP
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. 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 2-11, 13-17, 20 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. Claims 2-11 recite the limitation "PCM layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is vague and indefinite as to what Phase Change Material is being claimed, and what substances would be considered equivalents, since most every material known to man will change between solid/liquid/gas when subjected to sufficient heat and/or pressure. Double Patenting Claims 1-15 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-15 of Application No. 18/862,706. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822. 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, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barsy et al. US 3,132,065. Barsy et al. disclose a semi-conductive floor covering comprising: A top layer (10), a plurality of sublayers (11, 12) comprising at least one heat conductive layer (12) including graphite. Wherein a substrate (13) is disposed beneath the sublayers (11, 12). See Col. 2, ln. 5-70; Fig. 1. With respect to claim 12 Barsy et al. disclose a method of making a floor pavement structure comprising the steps of: Applying a 1st reaction mixture (12), comprising a heat conductive material, such as graphite, onto a substrate (13) and allowing said reaction mixture to set. Forming a plurality of layers (11, 10) on to the heat conductive sublayer (12). This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 2, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barsy et al. US 3,132,065 in view of Lentz et al. US 2016/0208155. Barsy et al. disclose a semi-conductive floor covering comprising: A top layer (10), a plurality of sublayers (11, 12) comprising at least one heat conductive layer (12) including graphite. Wherein a substrate (13) is disposed beneath the sublayers (11, 12). See Col. 2, ln. 5-70; Fig. 1. What Barsy et al. do not disclose is the use of Phase Change Materials in the flooring structure. However, Lentz et al. teach it is known to make walls, roofs, and floors from microencapsulated phase change materials, for use as latent heat thermal storage systems. See [0003]. 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 middle and top layers (10, 11) of Barsy et al. with the phase change materials taught by Lentz et al. in order to accommodate outdoor applications. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-11, 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 10. 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 1/10/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 06, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+8.2%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
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