Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/328,969

CLADDING INSTALLATION SYSTEM

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Jun 05, 2023
Examiner
MINTZ, RODNEY K
Art Unit
3635
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Keystone Lintels Limited
OA Round
2 (Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
735 granted / 932 resolved
+26.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
950
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 932 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Status of Claims Claims 1-18, 24 and 25 are pending. Claims 1-18 are subject to examination in this Office action. Claims 24 and 25 are withdrawn (non-elected). Claims 19-23 have been canceled. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 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. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by ES 1230484 U (cited by Applicant). Regarding independent claim 1, ES '484 describes a cladding installation system for a building, the cladding installation system comprising a cladding mounted assembly (40) for aiding cladding installation and a building mounted assembly (20) for aiding cladding installation, the cladding mounted assembly comprising means for locating cladding (10) onto the building mounted assembly and comprising means for guiding cladding into position relative to a cladding or building structure below or above (41, 42, 43, 44), the building mounted assembly comprising means for guiding and locating the cladding into a final in situ position on the building and for supporting a weight of the cladding in its final in situ position (21, 22, 30) the cladding installation system being adapted for guiding, locating and securely mounting the cladding to the cladding or building structure simply by lowering the cladding into the final in situ position (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 2, wherein the cladding installation system comprises drainage means for draining any moisture from a top of the building mounted assembly away from the building (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 3, wherein the means for locating the cladding onto the building mounted assembly comprises a plurality of spaced apart mechanical coupling means formed for mechanical coupling with a plurality of spaced apart and correspondingly located mechanical coupling means of the building mounted assembly (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 4, wherein the correspondingly located mechanical coupling means of the locating means of the cladding mounted assembly and the building mounted assembly comprise male and female mechanical coupling means (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 5, wherein the female mechanical coupling means of the locating means of the cladding mounted assembly comprise protruding flanges having an aperture (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 6, wherein the male mechanical coupling means of the building mounted assembly comprises a wall mounted bracket with an upwardly projecting locating spigot formed for passing through an aperture of the protruding flange (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 7, wherein the means for guiding cladding into position relative to cladding or building structure below or above comprise at least one guide member on a lower portion or an upper portion of the cladding (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 8, wherein the means for guiding cladding into position relative to cladding or building structure below or above comprise a plurality of guide members projecting beyond the lower portion or the upper portion of the cladding in a plane parallel to a vertical plane of the cladding (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 9, wherein the plurality of guide members projecting beyond the lower portion or the upper portion of the cladding in the plane parallel to the vertical plane of the cladding are located on an internal surface of the cladding (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 10, wherein the means for guiding cladding into position relative to cladding or building structure below or above are adapted to align vertical outer planes of the cladding (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 11, wherein the means for guiding cladding into position relative to cladding or building structure below or above comprises a means for aligning lateral edges of the cladding located one on top of the other (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 12, wherein the means for aligning the lateral edges of cladding located one on top of the other comprises at least one guide member projecting beyond the upper portion of the lower cladding in a plane parallel to a vertical plane of the cladding, the guide member having a locating means formed for receiving a lateral edge alignment guide member disposed on a lower portion of cladding, the lateral edge alignment guide member being formed for engaging with the locating means of the cladding below (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 13, wherein the building mounted assembly comprises means for allowing vertical adjustment of the building mounted assembly relative to the building (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 14, wherein the building mounted assembly comprises means for allowing vertical adjustment of the cladding mounted assembly relative to the building mounted assembly and the building (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 15, wherein the building mounted assembly comprises a building engagement portion configured to engage with the building structure when the building mounted assembly is fixed to the building structure (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 16, wherein the building engagement portion comprises one or more elongate apertures for receiving fixing elements to fix the building engagement portion to a surface (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 17, wherein the building mounted assembly comprises a projection that projects from the building engagement portion and which is configured to fix a building mounting component to an intermediate mounting component and ultimately to the cladding mounted assembly (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Regarding claim 18, wherein the intermediate mounting component comprises a saddle for sitting across a top of the projection (see e.g., Figs. 1-7). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments submitted on 23 March 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive of error for at least the following reasons. Applicant asserts that ES '484 does not describe the recited cladding mounted assembly because cladding 10 is manually installed on cladding mounted assembly 40. This assertion is not commensurate in scope with the claim. As presently drafted, claim 1 does not preclude installation of the same by a manual operator or user. Moreover, the Examiner notes that the examined claims do not require a cladding mounted assembly fixed in a factory environment as suggested by Applicant. Applicant asserts that the examined claims require up and down adjustment of the building mounted assembly rather than “rotating the cladding-mounted assembly to fix the cladding-mounted assembly onto the building mounted assembly” as described by ES '484. This assertion is not commensurate in scope with the claims, as the claims do not preclude initially rotating the cladding during the adjustment process. In this regard, the Examiner notes that once bracket 40 is positioned within a top region of the slots 31, cladding 10 is securely mounted to the building structure simply by lowering the cladding (at least to some degree) into the final in situ position as required by claim 1. Applicant appears to assert that the system of ES '484 is not capable of functioning as claimed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In this regard, “[a] patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or functionally.” Id. at 1478 (citing In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212 (CCPA 1971) (“[T]here is nothing intrinsically wrong with [defining something by what it does rather than what it is] in drafting patent claims.”). “Yet, choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk.” Id. In particular, where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 213. In the present case, the Examiner notes that all of the rejected claims are device/system claims, not method claims. As such, statements directed to the manner in which the device/system is used are mere statements of intended use and are not given patentable weight. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477. Hence, Applicant’s arguments directed to various intended uses of the claimed invention are not persuasive of error. However, functional limitations are given patentable weight. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 212. In this regard, the Examiner maintains that the cited prior art is capable of performing the recited functions. Indeed, it is Applicant’s burden to show that the prior art is not capable of performing the various functions recited in the pending claims. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1258 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, Applicant has not provided any persuasive, objective evidence in the record in satisfaction of that burden. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney arguments are not objective evidence). Conclusion 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. Authorization for Email Communication – In the event Applicant wishes to communicate with the Examiner via electronic mail, written authorization should be provided in Applicant’s next response. See MPEP § 502.03. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by Applicant: Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, we hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with any authorized representative concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. We understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY MINTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7327. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 0730 - 1630 EDT. 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 Mattei can be reached on 571-270-3238. 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. /RODNEY MINTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 05, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Mar 23, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601218
SHUTTER ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601167
TRANSPORTABLE EXPANDABLE STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601172
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SECTIONAL CONSTRUCTION ASSEMBLY FOR USE WITH A WOOD MULLION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601171
PLASTIC BUILDING BLOCKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590457
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MOUNTING A PANEL TO AN INTERNAL FRAME OF A MODULAR WALL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
79%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+10.7%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 932 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