Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/585,608

TRUSS WITH ADJUSTABLE CONNECTING ELEMENT FOR A FORK-AND-PIN CONNECTION

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 23, 2024
Examiner
KATCHEVES, BASIL S
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
H O F Alutec Metallverarbeitungs GmbH & Co. Kg
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
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
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 Newly submitted claim 13 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 13 recites the securing portion being a nut which is coaxial with the threaded bar and the sleeve. However, the previously examined claims, and currently amended claim 1, recite the securing portion is between the opposing portions of the threaded bar and the sleeve, which appears to be where the threads meet and is not coaxial. Additionally, the Applicant should note that the term “coaxial” is not found in the specification. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 13 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. US 2002/0110406 to Coles in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2020/0224435 to Apostolopoulos et al. Regarding claim 1, Coles discloses a truss of cuboid structure (figs 5-7) with longitudinal edges (truss bars) and cross bars between the truss bars (perpendicular bars), the truss bars including open ends which connect fork and pin connections which are connecting portions having a sleeve (fig. 1&2: 44) in the truss bar, the sleeve having internal threads (48) into which a threaded bar (42) of the connecting portion (10) is inserted, the threaded bar defines a pin head or a fork head (12, 14 or also 54) and the connecting portion. However, a securing portion located between opposing portions of the threaded bar and the sleeve is not disclosed. Apostolopoulos discloses a truss (abstract) and having such locking portion being a locking nut (fig. 7: 102) outside the sleeve which is between opposing portions of the threaded bar and the sleeve (crosses through from one to the other). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coles by using such a locking nut to further make the structure of Coles more rigid. Regarding claim 2, a thread pitch is not explicitly disclosed by Coles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coles by using a particular thread pitch, as the thread shown in figure 1 appears to be fine as it is relatively thin and a fine thread pitch of 1.3 to 1.7 mm would make for a more secure fitting with less wobble from the forked or pin portion. Regarding claim 3, a securing portion including a nut screwed into the threaded rod outside the sleeve is not disclosed. Apostolopoulos discloses a truss (abstract) and having such a locking nut (fig. 7: 102) outside the sleeve. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coles by using such a locking nut to further make the structure of Coles more rigid. Regarding claim 4, the sleeve is pinned to the truss bar (as seen in figs. 3 and 4 [0036]). Regarding claim 5, the sleeves include projecting ends (flats 52, and sides fig. 2, pressed together as a friction fit in figs. 3 and 4). Regarding claim 6, the sleeves and threaded rods are steel [0041]. Regarding claim 7, the nut (108) is a locking nut. Regarding claims 8 and 9, Coles discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions of threads. 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 the thread length to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as an obvious design choice as a deeper thread would better secure the connecting portions to the sleeves. Regarding claim 10, the fork and pin connections create at least two trusses (figs. 5-7). Regarding claim 11, different lengths of connecting portions ae not disclosed. Apostolopoulos discloses such a connection (fig 13: see lower connection longer than upper connection) resulting in a circular shaped truss. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coles by using such an orientation in order to create a larger number of designs and structures. Regarding claim 12, scaffold is disclosed [0008] by Coles. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the recent claim amendments to claim 1. These are addressed in the new rejection above. Regarding the Apostolopoulos reference, the Applicant argues that this reference does not have a securing portion between opposing portions of the threaded bar and the sleeve. However, the sleeve fits within the threaded bar and is threaded together, as the sleeve also has threads. The opposing sections in a connection such as this, are where the inner walls of the sleeve oppose the outer walls of the threaded bar. This is the portion which “opposes” each other and is “between” each other. This is disclosed by Apostolopoulos as recited in the rejection above. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. 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

Feb 23, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 28, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Final Rejection — §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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+17.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
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