Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 14, 2026
Application No. 18/659,691

ROLL FORMED BEAM ASSEMBLY FOR LIGHTWEIGHT FIELD IRRIGATION APPARATUS

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
May 09, 2024
Priority
Sep 01, 2022 — provisional 63/403,012 +1 more
Examiner
DANDRIDGE, CHRISTOPHER R.
Art Unit
3752
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Valmont Industries Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allowance Rate
394 granted / 597 resolved
-4.0% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
643
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
82.4%
+42.4% vs TC avg
§102
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
§112
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 597 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 24 puts forth “a plurality of segments configured for telescoping movement between a nested configuration and an extended configuration, the segments being concentrically nested in the nested configuration and longitudinally extended in the extended configuration.” The limitation is not supported by the disclosure. As such, the limitation is a recitation of new matter. Election/Restrictions Should it be found that the disclosure provides support for the cited structure, newly submitted claim 24 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The claim includes an invention drawn to a telescopic rolled-formed beam assembly. The structure is not contemplated by the originally filed set of claims. 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 24 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. ‘763 discloses use of a telescopic pipe in an irrigator system 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm. 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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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. CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE Primary Examiner Art Unit 3752 /CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 09, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 14, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12667744
INERTING INTERMITTENT SUPPRESSION SYSTEM
3y 6m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12667855
DISCHARGE DEVICE
3y 2m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12661679
LIQUID EJECTION DEVICE
3y 3m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12636529
CONTROLLED SYSTEM AND METHODS OF STORAGE STRUCTURE FIRE PROTECTION
3y 3m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12637848
OUTLET ELEMENT
3y 0m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+36.4%)
3y 2m (~1y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 597 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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