Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/445,974

Cold-formed-steel concrete composite slab with cast-in fingers

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 24, 2024
Examiner
KATCHEVES, BASIL S
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
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

§103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/3/26. The Applicant argues the structural features of the article is the same as that of the method. However, the method includes method steps which are not included in the article such as “flipping”, leveling, casting, cutting, etc. 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 1-14 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. Claim 1 recites “at top”, “the wire mesh reinforced concrete layer”, “the steel and concrete components”, “the bond” and “the structural integrity” lacking antecedent basis. Claims 2-14 are rejected for depending from claim 1. Claim 2 recites “the top” lacking antecedent basis and also is not clear as to what component the top is. Also, “a plurality of the finger connectors” lacks antecedent basis as it is not clear which connectors these are. Regarding claims 3 and 4, “a wire mesh reinforced concrete layer”, and “blocking plates” lacks antecedent basis as it is not clear if this has previously been claimed. Claim 6 recites “blocking plate”, “the HVAC pipes”, “wherein HVAC pipes” are lacking antecedent basis. Claim 7 recites “the bottom” lacking antecedent basis. Claim 9 recites “these two pieces”, “the cross-sectional profile” lacks antecedent basis. Regarding claim 11, “the wire mesh bound” lacks antecedent basis. The claims are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. The claims will be examined as best understood. 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) 1, 2, and 4-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 1,936,147 to Young in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2013/0232911 to Stal et al. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Young discloses a composite slab with a series of steel joists (figs. 7-13) having a bottom flange (fig. 6: 22) and a middle web (fig. 6: 2), the joists are arranged in parallel (figs. 14, 18), across the slab (5) and a plurality of finger connections (3) integrated at the top of the joists and provide increased surface area and shear resistance to enhance a bond with the slab. Regarding the limitation of cold formed steel, this is not disclosed. Stal discloses a system of steel joists made of cold formed steel (title, [0048]) and the use of steel for components [0004]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Young by using such a steel in order to create a strong structure using standard steel production. Regarding claim 2, as best understood, blocking plates (girders, lines 51-55, page 1) are disclosed which interconnect the joists perpendicularly to provide stability, the use of cold formed steel is as recited in the rejection of claim 1, and the finger connectors are at the top of the plates, when assembled. Regarding claim 4, as best understood, mesh is disclosed as above and is bonded with the fingers and blocking plates. Regarding claim 5, the fingers are uniformly distributed along the length of the joists (fig. 6: 3), the mesh is embedded in the concrete and provides strength from cracking and impact resistance. Regarding claim 6, holes in the joists and plates are not disclosed by Young. Stal discloses such holes (140). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Young by adding such holes to lighten the components and reduce costs. Regarding claim 7, a strip (fig. 9: 4) is clipped at the bottom of the slab allowing more sound resistance. Regarding claim 8, the joist has a “C” shape (figs 7, 8, 9, 11, 12) cross section. Regarding claim 9, the bottom flange is a double bottom flange (flanges on both left and right sides (as fig. 9), a C shaped joist, as in the rejection of claim 8, and a lipped steel (bend at top of joist) angle, two pieces connected (see fig. 12: bottom flange connected to make an upside down “T”. Regarding claim 10, the finger connectors are wave shaped (figs. 7, 8). Regarding claim 11, steel is disclosed by Young in view of Stal [0004], [0048] as in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 12, Young in view of Stal discloses galvanized steel is disclosed for use by Stal [0048] as recites in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 13, a decking is disclosed by Young (fig. 14: see planks on slab) and decking joists (joists directly under decking. Beside the slab. Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 13 as having a plurality of joists and rebar (solid cross pieces 6, fig. 6). Claim(s) 3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 1,936,147 to Young in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2013/0232911 to Stal et al. further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2011/0061336 to Thomas. Regarding claim 3, as best understood, a wire mesh reinforces the concrete (fig. 14) of Young. However, glass fibers are not disclosed in the concrete. Thomas discloses concrete with such fibers [0274]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Young by adding such a material since fiberglass reinforced concrete creates a stronger structure with minimal cost. 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

Apr 24, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (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 for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month