Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/343,044

REINFORCED INSULATED STRUCTURAL PANELS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 28, 2023
Examiner
KATCHEVES, BASIL S
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Ddp Specialty Electronic Materials US LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
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

§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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 16, 18, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 claims a negative limitation not found in the specification which is “strips are not studs that extend from the interior side to the exterior side”. This is new matter and must be removed. Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 11, 16, 18, 34 are rejected for depending from claim 1. 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. Claim 1 is 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 recites “the cladding fastener withdrawal force” which lacks antecedent basis. The recitation “to double or greater” is not clear as to what is double and what is greater. Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 11, 16, 18, 34 are rejected for depending from claim 1. The claims will be examined as best understood. 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) 1-3, 5-7, 11, 16, 18 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,308,491 to Porter in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2009/0077916 to Scuderi et al. Regarding claim 1, Porter discloses a panel (fig. 2, title), an insulation layer (fig. 2: 14) an outer layer (assembly which includes 16) board adjacent to a first lateral surface (flat top) of the insulation layer, and a plurality of reinforcement structures (22a, 22b) which are strips (column 3, lines 57-59 “thin, elongated”) within the panel wherein the reinforcement structure strips are fixed between insulation and inner surface of the outer layer (assembly which includes 16), the reinforcement structures being wood studs (column 3, lines 53-55; abstract), wherein the reinforcement structures have a length equal to the length of the outer layer (see uniform lengths of components fig. 7). However, the outer layer board and the strips are not disclosed as being magnesium oxide. Scuderi discloses a panel with multiple components being made from magnesium oxide [0026]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Porter by using such a material as disclosed by Scuderi in order to better strengthen the structure. Regarding dimensions of these materials, Porter discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions as claimed. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Porter to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as a design choice where larger components would increase strength where needed as smaller components would decrease strength where strength is not needed. Regarding the limitation of the strips increasing the cladding fastener withdrawal force, this may be performed by the strips of Porter. Regarding claim 2, Porter in view of Scuderi disclose the panel having a second outer layer (12). Regarding claim 3, a second plurality of reinforcing strips (26b, 26c, 26d) are disclosed and are between the insulation layer (14) and an inner surface of the second outer layer (12), the second plurality of reinforcement structures are also wood studs (column 3, lines 53-55). Regarding claims 5-7, Porter discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Porter to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as a design choice based upon the intended strength of the panel to be made, as studs/strips are found in various sizes. Regarding claim 11, markings on the outside indicating reinforcement structure locations is not explicitly disclosed. However, the Examiner takes official notice that studs are typically secured to gypsum by sheetrock screws, the sheetrock screws are visible from outside the panel and locate the studs. This is a well-known and used method of locating a stud when hanging weight from a wall stud. The use of sheetrock screws would have been obvious to one in the art at the time of filing in order to secure the studs to the gypsum in a strong manner. Regarding claim 16, an epoxy cement is disclosed as being between layer 18 and layer 16 of the outer layer (column 3, lines 28-32), epoxy being inherently water resistant. Regarding claim 18, a polystyrene and urethane are disclosed as being the insulation (column 3, lines 24-26) as polyurethane foam is a type of foam that is made from polyurethane chemistry, which is a polymer composed of many urethane units. Regarding claim 34, the reinforcement strips are affixed by insulating material in the insulating layer (Porter, column 3, lines 65-67). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the strips of Porter, as used in the rejection above, are studs and not strips. The Applicant should note that even though they are described as studs by Porter, the term is a functional term and the description of these studs of Porter, as shown in the figures, as thin and may be construed as strips. It is well known that the term “stud” is very broad and does not entail having a specific dimension as some studs are found to be larger or smaller, hollow, steel, C shaped, etc. The studs disclosed by Porter are shown in the figures, such as figures 1 and 2, as being thin strips. Regarding the recently added limitation of increasing fastener withdrawal force, this is a functional limitation reciting a desired result. The structure of Porter in view of Scuderi discloses the same structural limitations of the instant application and can therefore perform in a similar manner. Regarding the claim applying to being prior to installation, the above rejection merely points to the teachings of Porter and Scuderi which meet the structural limitations of the instant application. 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

Jun 28, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jul 29, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 13, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 11, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+17.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
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