Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/624,958

SPACE FRAME

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 02, 2024
Examiner
MAESTRI, PATRICK J
Art Unit
3635
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
772 granted / 1057 resolved
+21.0% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1090
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
45.3%
+5.3% vs TC avg
§102
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§112
31.6%
-8.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1057 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 . 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 1-8 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. Regarding claim 1: The preamble should read “A space frame…” as no space frame has been previously recited. Additionally, it is unclear what “further space frame” is being referred to. Should this read “further, said space frame…”? It is unclear what “with internal threads with internal threads” means. Is this redundant? Regarding claim 4: It is unclear what “hollow solid tubes” are. These are contradictory terms. Regarding claim 6: It is unclear what “irregular hexagons” refer to. What is an “irregular hexagon”? Additional claims rejected under 35 USC 112 but not addressed are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and failing to further remedy the issue(s). 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, 4, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn (DE 2436628) in view of Finger (US Patent No 3,632,147) and Benthein et al. (US Patent No 10378,198) (“Benthien”). Referring to claim 1: Kuhn teaches the space frame includes rods (items 7, 8, 9) and nodal elements (item 5) of polyhedral shape with threaded holes on the faces (item 16) for fastening the rods, characterized in that the rods have external threads at the ends (item 11), where the diameter of the external thread matches the diameter of the threaded hole. Kuhn does not teach the rods have a tubular cylindrical shape, further space frame includes a sleeve with internal threads with internal thread, designed for detachable connection of the rods. However, Finger teaches the rods have a tubular cylindrical shape (figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Kuhn and have the rod a tubular cylindrical shape as taught by Finger in order to allow for a uniform shape that is symmetrical no matter what rotational orientation it is installed at. They do not teach space frame includes a sleeve with internal threads with internal thread, designed for detachable connection of the rods. However, Benthien teaches space frame includes a sleeve (item 9) with internal threads (item 9a) with internal thread, designed for detachable connection of the rods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Kuhn and Finger with the internal threads of the sleeve taught by Benthien in order to allow for length adjustability of the rods. Referring to claim 4: Kuhn, Finger, and Benthien teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally Finger teaches the rods are hollow solid tubes Figure 6, item 40). Hollow solid tubes balance strength and weight. Referring to claim 5: Kuhn, Finger, and Benthien teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kuhn teaches the nodal elements have fourteen faces, six of which are square, and the remaining eight faces are hexagonal (figure 5). Referring to claim 8: Kuhn, Finger, and Benthien teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. They do not specifically teach characterized in that it is made of composite materials. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose a composite material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) Composite materials are designed to balance strength, weight, weatherability, and cost. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn in view of Finger, Benthien, and Maughan (US Patent No 5,713,686). Referring to claim 2: Kuhn, Finger, and Benthien teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. They do not specifically teach the sleeve is prismatic. However, Maughan teaches the sleeve is prismatic (figure 2 item 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Kuhn, Finger and Benthien with the prismatic shape taught by Maughan in order to allow for adjustability with a wrench. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn in view of Finger, Benthien, and Davister (US Patent No 5,088,852). Referring to claim 3: Kuhn, Finger, and Benthien teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. They do not teach it further includes hexagonal lock nuts on both sides of the sleeve. However, Davister teaches it further includes hexagonal lock nuts on both sides of the sleeve (item 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Kuhn, Finger, and Benthien with the lock nuts taught by Davister in order to prevent the sleeve from turning once it is in its installed position, Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3. 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. /PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 02, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590453
CONCEALED STRUCTURAL CONNECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590456
MODULAR BUILDING BLOCKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577792
SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR RAISED FLOORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559941
Profiled metallic sheet for a sandwich panel
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12559932
JOIST HANGER
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+16.6%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1057 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