Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/552,087

METHOD FOR PROVIDING A WOOD-BASED LOAD-BEARING PANEL FOR USE IN THE ASSEMBLING OF A CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Sep 22, 2023
Examiner
GLESSNER, BRIAN E
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Leko Labs S A
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
32%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
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 §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 Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, at the beginning of the line, please insert – A --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 10, at the beginning of the line, please delete [ply] and insert – plies --. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 4-5 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 4-5 have not been further treated on the merits. Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 6 has not been further treated on the merits. Claims 9-12, 15, 17-20 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, claims 9-12 have not been further treated on the merits. 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. 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. Claims 1-20 are 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. Regarding claim 1 line 14, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number and section of plies" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the load-bearing capacity" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the required vertical force" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 4 line 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 6 recites the limitation "the local load-bearing capacity" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the values" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 13, line 3, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 17 recites the limitation "the stacks" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘762 (WO2016176762). For claim 21, ‘762 discloses a construction system (fig. 1, 10), comprising a set of levels (see figure 1, there are multiple levels shown). which include a floor [0014], a ceiling [0076] and load-bearing walls (figs. 2-3), wherein: at least one of the load-bearing walls (fig. 1, walls of 10) include(s) a first wood-based load-bearing panel (panels interior of the building) and a second wood-based load-bearing panel (panels at the perimeter of the building), the first panel is located at a first position in the construction system (interior) the second panel is located at a second position (perimeter of house) in the construction system the first position is different from the second position, the first position is associated with a first required vertical force to be supported by the first panel (inherent), the second position is associated with a second required vertical force to be supported by the second panel (inherent), the first vertical force is different from the second vertical force (the forces required to support the interior are different from those of the exterior), each of the first and second panels includes at least three superimposed plies (fig. 3, 73, 32, 36), at least two plies of which includes a series of wood-based strips distributed along the ply, the wood-based strips of at least one ply being substantially vertically oriented (32) within the construction system. ‘762 does not explicitly disclose that the load-bearing capacity of the first panel is comprised between 1 and 4 times the first required vertical force and the load-bearing capacity of the second panel is comprised between 1 and 4 times the second required vertical force. However ‘762 discloses the obviousness of reinforcing the panels to avoid buckling [0043] and it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the load-bearing capacity of the first panel comprise between 1 and 4 times the first required vertical force and make the load-bearing capacity of the second panel comprise between 1 and 4 times the second required vertical force since this merely involves reinforcing the panels according to design specifications to achieve expected and predictable results like increased strength of the construction system. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA K IHEZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5347. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm. 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 at 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. /JOSHUA K IHEZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 22, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
32%
Grant Probability
59%
With Interview (+27.3%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
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