Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/427,813

SLAB SUPPORT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 30, 2024
Examiner
KATCHEVES, BASIL S
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Safeboard LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
895 granted / 1239 resolved
+20.2% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1271
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
§112
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1239 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 Objections Claim 1, 6, 8 are objected to. These claims claim a panel and also recite limitations to a delicate slab, appearing to be a combination panel and slab. However, only the panel is positively claimed. The claims will be examined as the sub combination, drawn to the panel. Election/Restrictions Claims 13-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/17/25. 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) 1-3, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,944,124 to Armstrong. Regarding claim 1, Armstrong discloses a first panel (fig. 2: right side where 14 points) capable of attaching to a slab, a side of the first panel is non linear (see where 24 points), and a second panel (left side, fig. 2) also capable of attaching to a slab and having nonlinear side (right side approximate to where 16 points), the panels are keyed for engagement with each other (as seen in fig.3 where wavy edges of both panels 10a and 10 abut). Regarding claim 2, the nonlinear panel sides may slidably engage in a flush non slip manner (fig. 3). Regarding claim 3, the non linear sides are reciprocal wave patterns (fig. see wave pattern approximate to where 24 points). Regarding claim 6, a porcelain material may be attached to the panel. Regarding claim 8, the mass of the panels may be less than a mass of a slab, and the rigidity of the panels may be higher than that of a slab. 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. Claim(s) 4, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,944,124 to Armstrong. Regarding claims 4 and 7, Armstrong discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions of the waves. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as a mere design choice for panels that may need to be larger or smaller, they would require larger or smaller various dimensions and sizes. Regarding claim 9, the use of aluminum is not disclosed. However, the use of metal is disclosed (column 1, lines 19-25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong by using aluminum as aluminum is a metal and resists corrosion from weathering. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,944,124 to Armstrong in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,001,361 to Unruh. Regarding claim 5, Armstrong discloses two panels, not a third with two non linear sides. Unruh discloses a plurality of panels (fig. 1) having nonlinear sides and joined together (fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong by adding extra panels in order to make a larger panel to support a larger load. Also, it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,944,124 to Armstrong in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,876,810 to Bodine et al. Regarding claims 10 and 11, Armstrong does not disclose the use of a peel ply tape layer. Bodine discloses the use of a two sided peel ply tape layer (claim 6) for use on panels for adherence to surface elements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong by adding such a tape in order to better secure additional structure to the panels. Regarding claim 12, the adhesive may bond to a ceramic material. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Basil Katcheves whose telephone number is (571)272-6846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST. 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, Brian Glessner can be reached on (571)272-6754. 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. /BASIL S KATCHEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601187
FLOOR PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595701
A MANUFACTURING METHOD OF AN INTELLIGENT ANTI-TERRORISM PROTECTIVE DOOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595652
PRECURSORS FOR STABILIZED IMPALING CLIPS, STABILIZED IMPALING CLIPS FORMED THEREFROM, AND METHOD OF MOUNTING AN ACOUSTIC PANEL ONTO A STRUCTURAL COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577786
INSULATED DECORATIVE PANEL FOR A WALL TREATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565034
MAT AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+17.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1239 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