Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/066,090

BUILDING SURFACE PRODUCT INCLUDING ATTACHMENT STRUCTURES, BUILDING SURFACE SYSTEM, AND METHOD OF ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §103§DP
Filed
Dec 14, 2022
Examiner
GLESSNER, BRIAN E
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Certainteed Gypsum Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
32%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
59%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 32% of cases
32%
Career Allow Rate
43 granted / 136 resolved
-20.4% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
178
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 136 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
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 . Response to Amendment The following office action is non-final. The finality of the previous office action is hereby withdrawn in light of newly discovered prior art. The indication of allowable subject matter in the last office action is hereby withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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, 6, 9-13, 19, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Remin (8141316) in view of Pretot (2081368). In regard to claims 1, 19, 22, and 23, Remin discloses a building surface product 102 (figures 4-6) comprising: a substantially planar panel having a first side, a second side, a first end 118, a second end 118, a front surface 111, a rear surface 112, and a gypsum body between the front surface and rear surface, the gypsum body including a front layer having a first tapered face along the first edge (The tapered faces are formed by the V-grooves 110 as shown in figures 4-6. The examiner would like to note that the panel 102 is a piece of drywall, and drywall is known to those of ordinary skill in the art as being made of a gypsum core with paper out layers. This is common knowledge in the art), a reinforcing layer 116 disposed behind the front layer, the reinforcing layer including a first section along a first edge of the panel, the first section being disposed behind the front layer along the first edge, the reinforcing layer having a tapered face along the first edge (formed by V-groove 110), and a first edge section between the front layer and the first section of the reinforcing layer at the first edge, the first edge section having a triangular shape (See edges of panel in figure 6) including a front face that is adjacent to the first tapered face of the front layer and a rear face that is adjacent to the tapered face of the first section of the reinforcing layer. Remin does not specifically disclose the use of a first attachment post extending outward from the rear surface of the panel, the first attachment post including: a shaft having a first end that penetrates the rear surface of the panel and second end that is spaced from the panel, and a lip extending radially outward from the shaft and configured to hold the first attachment post in an aperture of a support structure, wherein the first attachment posts extends at least partially through the reinforcing layer. Pretot teaches that it is known to use attachment posts (5, 6, 7, 9) having all of the above claimed features for attaching a cementitious board to a wall stud, figures 1-3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fastener of Pretot to attach the panel of Remin to a support structure, because the fastener will all the panel to be attached to a support in a secure manner without the fastener being visible. This will allow for a clean finished appearance to the wall. In regard to claim 6, Remin in view of Pretot disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein continuous facing sheet extends around the first edge so as to cover a rear face of the first section of the reinforcing layer, an outer face of the first edge section, and the front face of the front layer. It can be seen that the paper reinforcing layer of the drywall sheet is not cut when the V-channels are made. This is what allows the reinforcing layer 116 to be folded back onto face 112 of the panel. Further, if the applicant disagrees that the paper layer is not cut, the examiner takes official notice that cutting a v-channel out of drywall and not cutting the front paper layer so that the drywall can fold is notoriously well-known in the art. See the cited prior art of record for support of the examiner’s position. In regard to claim 9, Remin in view of Pretot disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 1, wherein the first attachment post includes a collar spaced from the lip and surrounding the shaft, and wherein the collar engages the rear surface of the panel (the collar is shown in figure 3 engaging the panel near where 5 is pointing. In regard to claims 10, 21, and 24, Remin in view of Pretot disclose a building surface system comprising a support structure (i.e. studs of Pretot) including a plurality (only one shown but Pretot teaches a wall assembly which would obviously include a plurality of studs) of rails that form a support surface, wherein the plurality of rails comprises a first rail including a longitudinal plate 1 and a first receiving slot (2, 3) in the longitudinal plate; and a first building surface product according to claim 1, 19, or 22 attached to the support structure, wherein the first attachment post of the first building surface product is received in the first receiving slot so as to secure the first building surface product against the support structure. The examiner would like to state that the combination of Remin and Pretot would obviously teach the panel of Remin being attached to the support structure of Pretot. The examiner also contends that Remin’s panel could be use in a flat state as shown in figure 6 or the final curved state shown in figure 7. Either configuration of panel could be attached to the studs of Pretot because both flat and curved stud walls are well-known in the art. In regard to claim 11, Remin in view of Pretot disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 10, wherein the longitudinal plate includes a first engagement edge extending along one side of the slot (Pretot figures 1-3), wherein the shaft of the first attachment post extends through the first receiving slot and the lip 6 of the first attachment post abuts the first engagement edge of the longitudinal plate (Pretot figure 3). In regard to claim 12, Remin in view of Pretot disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 10, wherein a first end 2 of the first receiving slot is wider than a second end 3 of the first receiving slot, and wherein the first attachment post is held at the second end of the first receiving slot (Pretot figure 2). In regard to claim 13, Remin in view of Pretot disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 10, wherein the longitudinal plate includes a front face and a first indentation that protrudes rearward from the front face, wherein the first receiving slot is disposed in the first indentation (Pretot shows the indentation in figure 2 at least at the bottom of the slot it is located in an indentation in the surface of the plate). Claim(s) 7, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Remin (8141316) in view of Pretot (2081368) and further in view of McCorkle et al. (6862863). In regard to claims 7, 8, and 20, Remin in view of Pretot disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 1 except for specifically disclosing that the panel includes a first receiver sleeve and the shaft of the first attachment post extends into the first receiver sleeve. The sleeve also includes an external flange disposed between the front layer and the reinforcing layer. McCorkle teaches that the use of a receiver sleeve having a flange abutting a back surface of a panel and a fastener passing through the sleeve is well-known in the art (figures 3 and 10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a receiver sleeve into Remin’s panel to receive the fastener of Pretot because by using the sleeve, the hole in the panel will be reinforced. Therefore, the brittle drywall material will not have to carry all the forces passing through the fastener. The sleeve will be more capable of performing this function. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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. The double patenting rejection of the previous office action has been overcome with the filing of the terminal disclaimer. As for rejoinder of claims 14-18, the claims will not be rejoined at this time because there are currently no allowable claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00. 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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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. /BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 14, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Sep 17, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Mar 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601169
MID-WALL VENT AND SYSTEMS INCORPORATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12569076
FOLDABLE STRUCTURE FOR CHILD PLAY AREA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571174
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR USE IN REPAIRING CABLE HIGHWAY GUARDRAILS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12522475
Construction Elevator Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12496495
CLIMBING STICKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
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
32%
Grant Probability
59%
With Interview (+27.3%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 136 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