Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/715,752

REINFORCED ANTI-SEISMIC STRUCTURE SUITABLE FOR URBAN UNDERGROUND COMPREHENSIVE PIPE GALLERY

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jun 03, 2024
Examiner
SMITH, NKEISHA
Art Unit
3632
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hebei Geo University
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
991 granted / 1365 resolved
+20.6% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1402
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
34.0%
-6.0% vs TC avg
§102
33.5%
-6.5% vs TC avg
§112
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1365 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . The following correspondence is a Final Office Action for application no. 18/715,752 for a RENFORCED ANTI-SEISMIC STRUCTURE SUITABLE FOR URBAN UNDERGROUND COMPREHENSIVE PIPE GALLERY, filed on 6/3/2024. This correspondence is in response to applicant’s reply filed on 10/20/2025. Claims 1-8 are pending. Priority Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. Claim 1 contains the term “inlaid manner,” however, it is unclear what is meant by the term “manner” and what constitutes the metes and bounds of the term. The Examiner suggests that the applicant describe the term “inlaid” without the term “manner.” Further, applicant recites the limitation regarding a “pipe gallery” and a “pipeline” but does not describe the relationship between the pipe gallery and pipeline. Appropriate clarification is requested. Claims 2-8 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 1. Claim 3 contains the term “sliding manner,” however, it is unclear what is meant by the term “manner” and what constitutes the metes and bounds of the term. The Examiner suggests that the applicant describe the term “sliding” without the term “manner.” Appropriate clarification is requested. Claim 6 recites the limitation “the buffering seat” therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 7-8 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 6. Claim 7 recites the limitation “the buffering seat” therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 6. Claim 8 contains the term “sliding manner,” however, it is unclear what is meant by the term “manner” and what constitutes the metes and bounds of the term. The Examiner suggests that the applicant describe the term “sliding” without the term “manner.” Appropriate clarification is requested. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. Claims 2-8 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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 Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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. /NKEISHA SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 October 31, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 03, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 20, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590671
Combined tripod
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590673
UTILITY CLAMPING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12570184
END CAP FOR A RAIL AND LONGITUDINAL ADJUSTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570222
COVER ASSEMBLIES FOR SEAT RAIL AT VEHICLE FLOOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565946
Pipe Support Member
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
73%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+17.0%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1365 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