Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/515,022

PREFABRICATED BUILDING SYSTEM AND METHODS

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Nov 20, 2023
Examiner
MINTZ, RODNEY K
Art Unit
3635
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Quattrocchi Kwok Architects
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

§DP
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 The present application is said to be a CON of Application No. 17/392,073. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11 and 13-24 are pending and subject to examination in this Office action. Claims 2, 8, 9 and 12 have been canceled. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Please be advised that a web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11 and 13-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,821,198. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the structural elements recited in the rejected claims are present in the noted claims of the '198 patent or they are obvious variants thereof. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11 and 13-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,078,660. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the structural elements recited in the rejected claims are present in the noted claims of the '660 patent or they are obvious variants thereof. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed on 24 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of error for at least the following reasons. Regarding the double patenting rejection, Applicant appears to assert that the pending claims are not coextensive in scope with the noted claims of Applicant’s issued patents. This assertion is misdirected. It is the Examiner’s position that any differences with the claim language is attributable to the use of different nomenclature defining the same or similar structure. 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. 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

Nov 20, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Jul 24, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Apr 01, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

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