Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/373,864

System and Method for Protection of Under-Slab Utilities From Changes in Soil Volume

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 27, 2023
Examiner
SINGH, SUNIL
Art Unit
3678
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
742 granted / 1103 resolved
+15.3% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1126
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
42.3%
+2.3% vs TC avg
§102
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
§112
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1103 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) 10,11,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flex Tend youtube video (EBAA Iron, Inc) (12 years ago). Flex Tend video shows a method for accommodating differential movement, caused by volumetric changes in a subgrade comprising a) installing a first segment of plumbing (see left or right pipe in video) b) wherein said first segment of plumbing has at least one end region; c) wherein said at least one end region of said first segment of plumbing comprises at least one end opening; d) installing a second segment of plumbing (see left or right pipe in video) e) wherein said second segment of plumbing has at least one end region; f) wherein said at least one end region of said second segment of plumbing comprises at least one end opening; g) installing a flexible expansion joint (see middle expansion joint) having a first end region and a second end region; h) connecting said first end region of said flexible expansion joint to said at least one end region of said first segment of plumbing; i) connecting said second end region of said flexible expansion joint to said at least one end region of said second segment of plumbing; j) wherein said first segment of plumbing is supported by said subgrade; k) wherein said flexible expansion joint has a minimum functional offset and a maximum functional offset; l) installing said flexible expansion joint in a configuration so that said flexible expansion joint is capable of accommodating an allowable movement upward of said first segment of plumbing; m) wherein said at least one end opening of said at least one end region of said first segment of plumbing has a flow line elevation that is the lowest elevation of said at least one end opening of said at least one end region of said first segment of plumbing; n) wherein said at least one end opening of said at least one end region of said second segment of plumbing has a flow line elevation that is the lowest elevation of said at least one end opening of said at least one end region of said second segment of plumbing; o) wherein said flow line elevation of said at least one end opening of said at least one end region of said first segment of plumbing and said flow line elevation of said at least one end opening of said at least one end region of said second segment of plumbing are configured to have an installed vertical offset comprised of the absolute value of the difference between said flow line elevation of said at least one end opening of said at least one end region of said first segment of plumbing and said flow line elevation of said at least one end opening of said at least one end region of said second segment of plumbing; p) wherein, when said flow line elevation of said at least one end opening of said at least one end region of said first segment of plumbing is lower than or the same as said flow line elevation of said at least one end opening of said at least one end region of said second segment of plumbing, said installed vertical offset is greater than or equal to the sum of the absolute value of said minimum functional offset of said flexible expansion joint and the absolute value of said allowable movement upward of said first segment of plumbing; q) wherein, when the flow line elevation of said at least one end opening of said at least one end region of said first segment of plumbing is higher than said flow line elevation of said at least one end opening of said at least one end region of said second segment of plumbing, said installed vertical offset is less than or equal to the difference between the absolute value of said maximum functional offset of said flexible expansion joint and the absolute value of said allowable movement upward of said first segment of plumbing; and r) wherein said flexible expansion joint is in a more horizontal than vertical orientation such that the absolute value of the difference between said flow line elevation of said at least one end opening of said at least one end region of said first segment of plumbing and said flow line elevation of said at least one end opening of said at least one end region of said second segment of plumbing is less than the minimum horizontal distance between said at least one end opening of said at least one end region of said first segment of plumbing and said at least one end opening of said at least one end region of said second segment of plumbing; and wherein said subgrade. Flex Tend youtube video discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see images below). However, Flex Tend youtube video is silent about the plumbing being a drain-waste-vent plumbing portion of a plumbing system of a building and a movement upward of said first segment of plumbing is at least 0.5 inches and wherein the subgrade is at a location beneath the building or within 5 feet outside the building perimeter, has a potential vertical movement upward of said subgrade that is at least 1 inch. Having plumbing underneath a slab foundation within the subgrade underneath or within 5 feet outside of the building perimeter is old and well known. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Flex tend youtube video to have the plumbing underneath a slab foundation within the subgrade underneath or within 5 feet outside of the building since such a modification is standard plumbing arrangement. Further it would be considered obvious to have the first segment to move upward at least .5 inches since such a modification would be would encompase a heave of about 1 inch. Re claim 11, the expansion joint discloses a telescoping portion (see images below) Re claim 16, it would be considered obvious to have the second segment to move upward at least .5 inches since such a modification would be would encompase a heave of about 1 inch. PNG media_image1.png 824 1450 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 848 1468 media_image2.png Greyscale Allowable Subject Matter Claims 12-15,17-22 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. Claims 23-36 are allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10,11,16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7051. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-3, F 9-8 and 2nd Sat 11-7. 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571 270 5281. 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. /SUNIL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678 SS 3/21/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 27, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 21, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 12, 2024
Interview Requested
Feb 16, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 16, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 28, 2024
Response Filed
Jun 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 02, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 08, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590424
Self-propelled earth working machine having a canopy variable in length in the longitudinal direction of the machine
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584409
RACKBAR ROTATION LIMIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571181
APPARATUS FOR REMOVING MATERIAL FROM A FLOOR OF A BODY OF WATER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565785
WAVE POOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560087
METHOD, ARRANGEMENT AND MACHINE FOR FULL FACE REAMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+24.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1103 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month