Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/777,448

FACTORY-APPLIED END GASKET FOR LAP SIDING

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 18, 2024
Examiner
CAJILIG, CHRISTINE T
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
710 granted / 1006 resolved
+18.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1035
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.3%
+2.3% vs TC avg
§102
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
§112
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1006 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 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 6 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 6 does not end with a period. It is unclear if the scope of the claim is complete or open ended. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2012/0247042 to Clancy et al. (“Clancy”). Regarding claim 1, Clancy discloses a siding end-joint sealing system, comprising: a plurality of pieces of siding 10 (see Fig. 3 for exemplary siding), each piece with a front side 20 or 22, a back side 22 or 20, a first end 24, a second end 28, a top edge 30, a bottom edge 26, a length, a height, and a thickness, and a factory-applied first gasket seal 32 integrated with the first end 24, extending for the height of the respective piece of siding and at least some or all of the thickness, and a factory-applied second gasket seal 32 integrated with the second end 28, extending for the height of the respective piece of siding and at least some or all of the thickness (par 0062 discloses seal 32 on two, three, or four edges); wherein the plurality of pieces of siding are configured to be installed in a series of rows, each row comprising several pieces of siding affixed on a structural wall, panel or framing end-to-end (Fig. 8), such that the first end of one piece of siding forms a joint with the second end of an adjacent piece of siding, and the respective first gasket seal and second gasket seal in the joint are in contact with each other (par 0065 discloses boards with seals on parallel edges, seals will engage seals of other boards 10); wherein, after installation of the pieces of siding, the respective first gasket seal and second gasket seal provide an air penetration barrier in the joint. Regarding claim 2, Clancy discloses that the joint is a butt joint (Fig. 6). Regarding claim 3, Clancy discloses that the first gasket seal (32 on end 24) extends across all of the thickness of the respective piece of siding, and the second gasket seal (32 on 28) extends across all of the thickness of the respective piece of siding. Regarding claim 4, Clancy discloses that the first gasket seal (32 on end 24) extends across a first distance of the thickness of the respective piece of siding, and the second gasket seal (32 on end 28) extends across a second distance of the thickness of the respective piece of siding. Regarding claim 5, Clancy discloses that the first distance and second distance are equal. Regarding claim 7, Clancy discloses that the first and second gasket seals are rectilinear in cross-section (see Fig. 5A). Regarding claim 8, Clancy discloses that the first gasket seal (see Fig. 5B embodiment) comprises a first pair of seal elements with a space therebetween, configured to receive the second gasket seal in said space when the joint is formed. Regarding claim 9, Clancy discloses that the first gasket seal (see Fig. 5B embodiment) comprises a first pair of seal elements (two spaced upper flanges) with a first space therebetween, and a second pair of elements (two spaced lower flanges) with a second space therebetween; and the second gasket seal comprises a first rectilinear element (one of the flanges) and a second rectilinear element (a second one of the flanges); wherein the first pair of seal elements are configured to receive the first rectilinear element in said first space, and the second pair of seal elements are configured to receive the second rectilinear element in the second space therebetween, when the joint is formed. Regarding claim 10, Clancy discloses that the first and second gasket seals 32 each comprise a flexible blade extending at an angle away from their respective first and second ends (see Fig. 5F). Regarding claim 11, Clancy discloses that the flexible blades (Fig. 5F) extend at an angle towards the front side 22 of the respective pieces of siding. Regarding claim 12, Clancy discloses that the flexible blades (Fig. 5F) extend at an angle towards the back side 22 of the respective pieces of siding. Regarding claim 14, Clancy discloses that the gasket seals 32 are compressible (par 0065). Regarding claim 15, Clancy discloses that the gasket seals 32 are made of the same material (par 0073). Regarding claim 16, Clancy discloses that after installation of the pieces of siding, the respective first gasket seal and second gasket seal provide a water or moisture penetration barrier in the joint. Regarding claim 17, Clancy discloses a siding product 10 with factory-installed air seals 32, comprising a piece of siding with a front side 20, a back side 2, a first end 24, a second end 28, a top edge, a bottom edge, a length, a height, and a thickness a factory-applied first gasket seal 32 integrated with the first end 24, extending for the height of the respective piece of siding and at least some or all of the thickness; wherein the first end 24 is configured to form a joint end-to-end with an adjacent piece of siding, with the first gasket seal 32 forming an air penetration barrier in the joint. Regarding claim 18, Clancy discloses a factory-applied second gasket seal 32 integrated with the second end 28, extending for the height of the respective piece of siding and at least some or all of the thickness; wherein the second gasket seal 32 on said adjacent piece of siding is in contact with the first gasket seal when the joint is formed, the first gasket seal and adjacent second gasket seal together forming an air penetration barrier in the joint (par 0065 discloses boards with seals on parallel edges, seals will engage seals of other boards 10). Regarding claim 19, Clancy discloses that the first gasket seal 32 and adjacent second gasket seal 32 together form a water or moisture penetration barrier in the joint. 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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clancy in view of DE4101322 to Flicker (“Flicker”). Regarding claim 6, Clancy does not disclose that the first distance and second distance together are equal to the thickness of the respective pieces of siding. Flicker discloses a joint between two boards (Flicker 1, 2) wherein a first abutting connector (Flicker 4) extends across a first distance of the thickness of the respective piece of siding, and a second abutting connector (Flicker 5) extends across a second distance of the thickness of the respective piece of siding and wherein the first distance and second distance together are equal to the thickness of the respective pieces of the boards. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structure of Clancy to have the first distance and second distance together are equal to the thickness of the respective pieces of siding as taught in Flicker with a reasonable expectation of success because it would create a butt joint where the two sidings are flush. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clancy. Regarding claim 13, Clancy does not disclose that the first and second gasket seals 32 each has a thickness of 3/32″. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the structure of Clancy to have the first and second gasket seals each have a thickness of 3/32″ since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T CAJILIG whose telephone number is (571)272-8143. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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. /CHRISTINE T CAJILIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 18, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595674
SELF-SUPPORTING LOCULUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577774
Modular Collapsible Building Frames
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577940
Segment and system for a Scruton helix, Scruton helix, tower and method for mounting a Scruton helix
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571207
Logging Notch Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12559933
TRANSPORTABLE, RECONFIGURABLE HARSH ENVIRONMENT WORKSPACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
71%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+14.5%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1006 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