Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/713,526

A SYSTEM COMPRISING INSTALLED PANELS, A PANEL AND A METHOD FOR INSTALLING PANELS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
May 24, 2024
Examiner
KWIECINSKI, RYAN D
Art Unit
3635
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
BIPV.WORLD B.V.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
772 granted / 1133 resolved
+16.1% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1183
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
39.7%
-0.3% vs TC avg
§102
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
§112
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1133 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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to because: The drawings submitted with the present application fail to include Figures 5-7. Applicant should submit drawings from the original application which include Figures 5-7. For purposes of examination, the figures from the Certified Copy of the Foreign Priority Application were used for reference. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 4, the recitation “front site” appears it should read –front side--. Claim 4, line 4, the recitation “front site” appears it should read –front side--. Claim 5, line 1, the recitation “according to claim 5” appears it should read –according to claim 4--. Claim 7, line 4, the recitation “front site” appears it should read –front side--. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-7 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, lines 4, 8, 10, the recitation “plate like” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how “plate like” is being defined. What does the phrase “plate like” encapsulate? The rejections above also applied to all mentions of “plate like” in claims 2, 4, 5, and 7. Regarding claim 3, the recitation “the two bars” renders the claim indefinite since claim 1 from which claim 3 depends recites “horizontal bars” but never defines “two” bars. Regarding claim 3, lines 3-4, the recitation “the concerning corner” renders the claim indefinite since a corner of the panels were not previously recited, therefore the claim lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the outer surface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/102452 A1 to Stassen in view of US 2013/0037082 A1 to Grant. Regarding claim 1, Stassen discloses a system (Fig.1) comprising a rectangular panel (10, 11, Fig.3, 4) being installed against the outer surface of a building (inclined roof; Page 7, lines 4-5), wherein oblong support elements (4) are attached against said outer surface and wherein said support elements are provided with horizontal bars (8, 9), wherein said panel comprises a rectangular plate like portion (10, 11) at its front site and comprises along two opposite edges of said plate like portion a backwards directed portion (14; Page 7, lines 16-18), wherein each backwards directed portion is provided with a first recess (recess in connection member 12) and a second recess (recess in connection member 13), wherein each recess engages one of said horizontal bars (12 engages 8; 13 engages 9) and wherein at least a part of each first recess extend in a direction parallel with respect to said rectangular plate like portion (recess of 12), characterized in that the bars engaged by said second recess are provided with two locking members (17) being rotatable around that bar between a locking position (Fig.4) wherein the panel cannot move in the direction perpendicular with respect to the bar (Fig.4) and an unlocked position wherein the panel can move away from the bar (Page 8, lines 31-36). Stassen does not disclose wherein each second recess extends in a direction perpendicular with respect to said rectangular plate like portion. Grant discloses providing second recesses (9, Fig.6) of a rectangular panel (2) that extend in a direction perpendicular with respect to said rectangular plate like portion (recess 9 extends perpendicular to 2, Fig.6) in connection with a rotatable locking member (18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the second recesses of the panels of Stassen in a perpendicular orientation to the panels as taught by Grant so to allow the panels to be installed by insertion of the first groove, and rotation and locking of the bars within the second recesses, thereby only needing to prevent movement of the bar and second recess in a single direction, making the locking more secure. Regarding claim 2, Stassen discloses wherein said panel comprise a rectangular plate like element (10, 11) at the frontside of the panel and each backwards directed portion is an oblong holder member (14) attached against the back side of said plate like element (Fig.4). Regarding claim 4, Stassen discloses a rectangular panel (10, 11) to be installed against oblong support elements (4) being attached to the outer surface of a building (inclined roof), wherein said support elements are provided with horizontal bars (8, 9), and wherein said panel comprises a rectangular plate like portion (10, 11) at its front site and comprises along two opposite edges of said plate like portion a backwards directed portion (14; Page 7, lines 16-18), wherein each backwards directed portion is provided with a first recess (recess in connection member 12) and a second recess (recess in connection member 13), wherein each recess can engage one of said horizontal bars (12 engages 8; 13 engages 9; Fig.4), wherein at least a part of each first recess extend in a direction parallel with respect to said rectangular plate like portion (recess 12, Fig.4), characterized in that the bars engaged by said second recess are provided with two locking members (17) being rotatable around that bar between a locking position wherein the panel cannot move in the direction perpendicular with respect to the bar (Fig.4) and an unlocked position wherein the panel can move away from the bar (Page 8, lines 31-36). Stassen does not disclose wherein each second recess extends in a direction perpendicular with respect to said rectangular plate like portion. Grant discloses providing second recesses (9, Fig.6) of a rectangular panel (2) that extend in a direction perpendicular with respect to said rectangular plate like portion (recess 9 extends perpendicular to 2, Fig.6) in connection with a rotatable locking member (18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the second recesses of the panels of Stassen in a perpendicular orientation to the panels as taught by Grant so to allow the panels to be installed by insertion of the first groove, and rotation and locking of the bars within the second recesses, thereby only needing to prevent movement of the bar and second recess in a single direction, making the locking more secure. Regarding claim 5, Stassen discloses wherein said plate like portion is a rectangular plate like element (10, 11) at the frontside of the panel and each backwards directed portion is an oblong holder member attached against the back side of said plate like element (14). Regarding claim 6, Stassen discloses wherein the panel is a solar panel provided with photovoltaic cells (Page 6, lines 33-36). Regarding claim 7, Stassen discloses a method for installing a rectangular panel (10, 11) against the outer surface of a building (inclined roof), whereby oblong support elements (4) being provided with bars (8, 9) in transverse direction are attached against said outer surface so that said bars are horizontal directed (Fig. 1 and 3), whereby said panel (10, 11) comprises a rectangular plate like portion at its front site (Fig.4) and comprises along two opposite edges of said plate like portion a backwards directed portion (14; Page 7, lines 16-18), whereby each backwards directed portion is provided with a first recess (recess of 12, Fig.4) and a second recess (recess of 13), whereby each recess engages one of said horizontal bars (12 engages 8; 13 engages 9), whereby at least a part of each first recess extend in a direction parallel with respect to said rectangular plate like portion (recess 12), characterized in that a locking member (17) is rotated around one of the bars in such way that said bar cannot remove from said second recess (Fig.4). Stassen does not disclose wherein each second recess extends in a direction perpendicular with respect to said rectangular plate like portion. Grant discloses providing second recesses (9, Fig.6) of a rectangular panel (2) that extend in a direction perpendicular with respect to said rectangular plate like portion (recess 9 extends perpendicular to 2, Fig.6) in connection with a rotatable locking member (18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the second recesses of the panels of Stassen in a perpendicular orientation to the panels as taught by Grant so to allow the panels to be installed by insertion of the first groove, and rotation and locking of the bars within the second recesses, thereby only needing to prevent movement of the bar and second recess in a single direction, making the locking more secure. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/102452 A1 to Stassen in view of US 2013/0037082 A1 to Grant in view of EP 2 309 072 A1 to Parpinelli. Regarding claim 3, Stassen does not disclose wherein one of the two bars engaged by said second recess is provided with a fixation member being fixed to that bar, in such way that the concerning corner of the panel cannot move in a direction parallel with the bar. Parpinelli discloses one of the two bars (bar of 12, Fig.1) engaged by a recess is provided with a fixation member (68) being fixed to that bar, in such way that the concerning corner of the panel cannot move in a direction parallel with the bar (Paragraph [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the horizontal bar of Stassen with a fixation member as taught by Parpinelli so to provide control and stability in directions both parallel to the bar and perpendicular to the bar, thereby ensuring the panels stay in the desired position. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm. 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 at (571) 272-3238. 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. RDK /RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 24, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599788
Rope Grab
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601182
DECORATIVE QUOIN INSTALLATION AND ILLUMINATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600278
VEHICLE SEAT FLOOR FILLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594861
ADJUSTMENT DEVICE AND VEHICLE SEAT WITH ADJUSTMENT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589045
WALL MOUNT FOR MOUNTING A MEDICAL DEVICE
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+19.6%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1133 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