Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/602,697

FLOOR STRUCTURE SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USE

Non-Final OA §102§103§DP
Filed
Mar 12, 2024
Examiner
LAUX, JESSICA L
Art Unit
3635
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Bil-Jax Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
425 granted / 776 resolved
+2.8% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
63 currently pending
Career history
839
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
38.8%
-1.2% vs TC avg
§102
32.3%
-7.7% vs TC avg
§112
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 776 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,6,9-11,12,13,14 of U.S. Patent No. 11959300 in view of US PG Publication 20170051526. US Patent 11959300 claims a floor structure comprising a hub, a beam connected to the hubs, at least one pin on the hub and a beam connector that is at least one rod having an aperture adapted to receive the at least one pin to secure it to the hub as claimed in presently pending claim 1; And further-. Claims 13-14 claim the beam connector having two parallel plates separated by a gap., the plates separate first and second pins as presently claimed. 11959300 claim 1 does not expressly claim a beam connector having two parallel plates separated by a gap, the beam is at least partially located in the gap. 20170051526 discloses a beam connector having two parallel plates separated by a gap, a beam at least partially located between the plates in the gap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the floor structure of US Patent 11959300 to have the beam connector with two parallel plates separated by a gap to achieve the predictable result of securely attaching the beam to the hub with precise alignment and resisting undesired movement and separation. Claim 6 claims a beam connector with two spaced apparat parallel plates and fasteners extend through apertures in the plate and beam to secure them together as presently claimed. Claims 7-8 claim the beam has an upper surface an opposite lower surface and two parallel side surfaces and lips located above the pins and beam connector as presently claimed. Claim 10 claims end portions of the rod have a flat plate portion and an aperture as presently claimed. Claim 12 claims a gable upright connector with a lower portion and an upper portion as presently claimed. 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) 1-3,5-7,9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Linse (5862635). Claim 1. Linse discloses a floor structure system, comprising: a hub (as seen in figure 1); a beam connector connected to said hub, wherein the beam connector comprises two parallel plates (43) separated by a gap (as seen figure 7), wherein a beam (90) is at least partially located between the plates in the gap (as seen in figure 7), at least one pin (either of the bolts, where the bolts act as pins and therefore considered to be pins, as seen in the annotated figure below) located on the hub, wherein the at least one pin is adapted to connect with at least one rod (11 comprising 14 and 15) generally extending transverse an upward direction of the at least one pin (as seen in the figures); and wherein the at least one rod has an aperture (as seen in figure 1) adapted to receive the at least one pin therein to secure the rod to the hub. PNG media_image1.png 405 499 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 796 676 media_image2.png Greyscale Claim 2. The floor structure system of claim 1, wherein the plates separate a first pin (on one side on one plate 43) adapted to connect with a first rod and a second pin (on the other 43) adapted to connect with a second rod. Claim 3. The floor structure system of claim 2, wherein one of the first and second rods extends approximately 30-60 degrees from a beam direction (where it extend approximately 45 degrees downwardly which is a direction away from a longitudinal beam direction). Claim 5. The floor structure system of claim 1, wherein the beam has an upper surface (at the upper flange), an opposite lower surface (at the lower flange) and two parallel side surfaces (the sides of the web member), wherein the side surfaces are parallel one another and they are located within the parallel plates (as seen in figure 7). Claim 6. The floor structure system of claim 5, wherein the beam comprises lips (at the flanges) that extend transversely from the side surfaces of the beam (as seen in the figures), wherein the lips are located above the at least one pin and above the beam connector (where there are lips at the top of the beam). Claim 7. The floor structure system of claim 1, wherein the at least one rod (comprised of 14 and 15) has a first end portion (18) and an opposite second end portion (19), wherein the end portions comprise flat plates (as seen in the figure) wherein one of the apertures is located in each flat plate (as seen in the figures). Claim 9. Linse discloses a floor structure system, comprising: a first hub (as seen in figures 1 and 7), a second hub (80 as seen in figure 6), and a third hub (the other hub as seen in figure 7), wherein the first and second hubs each have a beam connector, wherein each beam connector comprises two parallel plates (43) separated by a gap (as seen in figure 7), wherein a beam (90) is located at least partially within the gap to connect the first and second hubs (as seen in figure 7); and a rod (11 comprised of 14 and 15) having a first aperture on a first rod end portion (at 18 as seen in figure 1) that extends over a hub pin (as noted in the annotated figure above) on the first hub and a second aperture on a second rod end (at 19) portion that extends over a hub pin (as noted in the annotated figure above) on the third hub (as seen in figure 7 to connect the first and third hubs. Claim 10. The floor structure system of claim 9, wherein the rod extends approximately 30-60 degrees from the beam direction (where it extend approximately 45 degrees downwardly which is a direction away from a longitudinal beam direction). Claim 11. The floor structure of claim 9, wherein the rod extends below the beam and is not coplanar with the beam (as seen in figure 7). Claim 12. The floor structure of claim 9, wherein the rod connects with the first hub and the third hub on the respective pins laterally outboard from the beam so that the beam and rod do not vertically overlap (as seen in figure 7). 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) 4,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linse (5862635) in view of Francis (20170051526). Claim 4. Linse discloses the floor structure system of claim 1, wherein fasteners (41) extend through apertures in the parallel plates but does not expressly disclose that fastener extend through the beam to connect the plate and fastener together. Francis discloses a floor structure having a hub and a beam connector (as seen in figures 5-11) having two parallel plates separated by a gap, the beam partially located between the plates and fastener extending through the apertures in the parallel plates and the beam to connect them together (as seen in figures 2-7). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the system of Linse to have fasteners extend through apertures in the parallel plates and the beam to connect them together to achieve the predictable result of facilitating proper alignment and locking the position of the beam with respect to the hub and plates to prevent undesired movement or positioning. Claim 8. Linse discloses the floor structure system of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a gable upright connector comprising a lower portion and an upper portion, wherein the lower portion defines at least one jaw and a stop plate, wherein the at least one jaw and the stop plate are adapted to at least partially receive the beam between them, wherein the upper portion has an eye bolt aperture and a upright pin aperture extending transverse the eye bolt aperture. Francis discloses a gable upright connector (14 as seen in figures 10-11) comprising a lower portion (at 40) and an upper portion ( at 11 including 46 as seen in figures 10-11), wherein the lower portion defines at least one jaw (housing 48) and a stop plate (49 or 44), wherein the at least one jaw and the stop plate are adapted to at least partially receive the beam between them (as noted in the figures and disclosure), wherein the upper portion has an eye bolt aperture (as seen in figures 3,10-11) and a upright pin aperture (the aperture between parallel plates at 46) extending transverse the eye bolt aperture (as seen in figure 10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the floor structure of Linse to have the gable upright connector as claimed and taught by Francis to achieve the predictable result of providing a support structure that can accommodate and attach to a tent structure as taught by Francis. Linse is concerned with providing a support stand for securing a building to a foundation and Francis is concerned with providing support stand for supporting a tent structure on a supporting surface, thus upon modification of Linse as above, to have the gable upright connector the floor support structure would be able to attach to a variety of building structures improving the universal use of the device of Francis. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-8228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30. 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 Mattei can be reached at 571.270.3238. 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. JESSICA L. LAUX Examiner Art Unit 3635 /JESSICA L LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 12, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12571221
FORM SUPPORT AND LENGTH-ADJUSTABLE ASSEMBLY THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565784
MOBILE STAGE DEPLOYMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559931
Device for Thermally Insulating, Force-Transmitting Retrofitting of a Second Load-Bearing Construction Element to a First Load-Bearing Construction Element and Structure with Such a Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12559943
Reinforcing Steel Skeletal Framework
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12553232
MULTI-STAGE CAMPING HOUSE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
55%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+28.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 776 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