Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 18/834,768

ROAD WITH REINFORCED ROADSIDE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 31, 2024
Priority
Feb 02, 2022 — IT 102022000001778 +1 more
Examiner
CHU, KATHERINE J
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Rt Stratec Rt S R L
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
67%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allowance Rate
243 granted / 522 resolved
-5.4% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
566
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
56.5%
+16.5% vs TC avg
§102
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
§112
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 522 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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Drawings There are multiple drawing objections: Figures 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “road-edge coupling points make a coupling with some uprights of said safety barrier” as claimed in claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The system includes a safety barrier, but none of the figures pertaining to the invention, Figures 3 and 4a-4b, show the safety barrier. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. Claims 1 and 3 (and claims 2 and 4-7 through dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The term “good” pertaining to tensile strength in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “good” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “abundantly” pertaining to covering the roadside in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “abundantly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 3 recites “said reticular mesh structure covers also abundantly said roadside”. This limitation is indefinite because “also” implies something else was covered abundantly. In claim 1, the reticular mesh structure is recited as covering the road substrate from side to side. Does “abundantly” mean “the entire width” (from side to side), and the reticular mesh structure covers the road substrate and the roadside from side to side? This claim as written is indefinite because it is confusing and does not make clear what Applicant’s invention requires. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30. 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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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. /KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671 /CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 31, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12698607
FLEXIBLE TENSIONED CRASH BARRIER
4y 3m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12686576
Adjustable Mobile Loading Dock
3y 10m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12674285
FORMWORK, MATRICES, CONCRETE MATRICES AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURE
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12624560
CONCRETE SCREEDING DEPTH AND LEVELING TOOL
4y 5m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12595629
SUBSTRATE TEXTURING TOOL WITH MOTORIZED LIFT
3y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
67%
With Interview (+20.6%)
2y 7m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 522 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