Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/694,579

IMPROVED SAFETY FEATURES FOR TACTILE PROFILES

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 22, 2024
Examiner
KATCHEVES, BASIL S
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
I-Glo Limited
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

§102 §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(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 depends from claim 1 and recites the same limitations found in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,715,743 to Schmanski. Regarding claim 1, Schmanski discloses a floor tile surface with tactile profiles (fig. 2: 22) having a first layer (41 or 51, figs. 4, 5) and second layer (top where 22 generally points)when the second layer wears away, the first layer will become visibly distinguishable. Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application No. US 2007/0218252 to Donald. Regarding claim 1, Donald discloses a flooring surface element (title) with tactile profile (blister 22A, fig. 7) the tactile profile having a first layer (fig. 7: layer made of 22) and a second layer (surface layer generally where 22A points, made of 21A material), the first layer is visibly distinguishable from the top, second, layer and when the top, second layer, wears away, the first layer (22) is revealed. Regarding claim 2, the first layer protrudes a predetermined amount above the floor (it should be noted that a floor may be construed as a substrate used to support the flooring element) as the first element is protruding upward. Regarding claim 3, the tactile profile is detectable by foot. Regarding claim 4, the amount is approximately 3mm ([0006] “about 5mm high”) above the floor. Regarding claim 6, the surface is made of a polymer and aggregate (abstract, polymer mixture with aggregate/particles). Regarding claim 8, glass is disclosed [0082]. Regarding claim 9, the floor is a tile (abstract). Regarding claim 10, the tile may be mounted on a surface. Regarding claim 11, the tactile profile is a blister [0035]. Regarding claim 12, a corduroy profile is disclosed (fig. 11: see lengths 28). Regarding claim 13, the tactile profiles may guide a pedestrian, as they are felt under foot. Regarding claims 14 and 15, the tactile profiles may be used in conjunction with a cycle path, because they are obvious and may be seen, they may highlight the track. Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 1. 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) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. US 2007/0218252 to Donald. Regarding claim 5, Donald does not explicitly disclose a visible property as being color. However, Donald discloses the use of a separate color [0082] for better visibility. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the color of 22 as this would make construction easier since the various components may be better differentiated. Additionally, it should be noted that these components 22 are of a different material than resin 21A and are most likely a different color, naturally. Regarding claim 7, the use of a polymer is disclosed (abstract) but not explicitly a polyurethane. The Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the construction art to use polyurethane, especially for flooring, since polyurethane provides a hard and aesthetic surface and is a material that withstands foot traffic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polyurethane as a polymer is called for. Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. US 2007/0218252 to Donald in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,989,775 to Jack et al. Regarding claims 16-18, Jack discloses a glowing (column 12, lines 28-32) beaded material. The beaded material of Donaldson [0082], in an embodiment, does not glow. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Donald by using a glowing material as visibility is required (purposes of illumination, [0082].), the glowing may indicate a pathway which may be for cycles. 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

Mar 22, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §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 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