Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/785,159

SUPPORT ARRANGEMENT FOR COVERING ELEMENTS OF A BUILDING

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 26, 2024
Examiner
WALRAED-SULLIVAN, KYLE
Art Unit
3635
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Masonry Support Systems Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
675 granted / 918 resolved
+21.5% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
68 currently pending
Career history
986
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
44.3%
+4.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
§112
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 918 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 Claims 1-20 are pending. 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. Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “it” in line 5. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. It appears this language is intended to refer to the support arrangement and will be interpreted as such. Re claim 10, claim 10 recites that the backing board is fixed only to the attachment means. It is unclear how this can be the case. The backing board must also be fixed in some manner to the building and to the covering elements. For the purposes of this examination, this language will be interpreted as requiring the backing board fixed to the attachment means. Re claim 15, claim 15 recites, “the second board portion” in line 2 and “the first board portion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “a second board portion” and “a first board portion” and will be interpreted as such. Re claim 16, claim 16 recites, “the first board portion” in line 2 and “the second board portion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “a first board portion” and “a second board portion” and will be interpreted as such. Re claim 19, claim 19 recites, “it” in line 5. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. It appears this language is intended to refer to the support arrangement and will be interpreted as such. Re claim 20, claim 20 recites, “it” in line 5. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. It appears this language is intended to refer to the support arrangement and will be interpreted as such. In addition, claim 20 is drawn to a “method of constructing.” However, no method steps are positively recited. Thus, it is unclear how the invention is practiced. For the purposes of this examation, the claim will be interpreted as reciting, “a method of construction a support arrangement, including providing the support arrangement.” Claims 2-9, 11-14, 17-18 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim. 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) 1-11, 13-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Coyle (US 2020/0318354) (Further, as shown in Applicant’s Fig. 1-2 “Prior Art”). Re claim 1, Coyle discloses a support arrangement (Fig. 5-6 101) for supporting covering elements ([0151]; 125) on a soffit ([0146]) and/or a fascia of a building ([0146]), the support arrangement (101) comprising a backing member (102, 103) for receiving covering elements ([0151]; 125) and an attachment means (110) extending longitudinally along the length (Fig. 6) of the backing member (102, 103) for attaching ([0146]) the support arrangement (101) to a building or a building component ([0146]) such that it forms a part of the building ([0146]) and wherein no support gussets (Fig. 6; 108 being a “reinforcing flange” and not a gusset; and where a gusset is defined as a sheet of metal for connection between beams, girders and/or columns) are provided spaced apart along the length (Fig. 6) of the support arrangement (101). Re claim 2, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the support arrangement (101) does not comprise a plurality of separate vertical support gussets (Fig. 6; 108 being a “reinforcing flange” and not a gusset; and where a gusset is defined as a sheet of metal for connection between beams, girders and/or columns). Re claim 3, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein in the support arrangement (101) there are no support gussets (Fig. 6; 108 being a “reinforcing flange” and not a gusset; and where a gusset is defined as a sheet of metal for connection between beams, girders and/or columns) extending from the attachment means (110) or the backing member (102, 103). Re claim 4, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein in the support arrangement (101) there are no support gussets (Fig. 6; 108 being a “reinforcing flange” and not a gusset; and where a gusset is defined as a sheet of metal for connection between beams, girders and/or columns) attached/fixed to (Fig. 6) the attachment means (110) or the backing member (102, 103). Re claim 5, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 1, the backing member (102, 103) is supportable only by (Fig. 6) the attachment means (110). Re claim 6, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the backing member (102, 103) and covering elements (125) are fixed to (Fig. 6) the attachment means (110) in use (Fig. 5-6), and the attachment means (110) is engageable with fixings ([0150]) of a mount ([0150]) for mounting the support arrangement (101) on a building ([0150]). Re claim 7, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the attachment means (110) is operable to receive directly (Fig. 5-6) the backing member (102, 103). Re claim 8, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the attachment means (110) comprises an attachment channel (110) having a longitudinal development (Fig. 6) with a U-shaped cross section (Fig. 5), a base (115) and two mutually opposing sidewalls (116a) that extend perpendicularly from (Fig. 6) the base (115), and an opening (between 116a) that is defined between the opposing sidewalls (116a) and faces (Fig. 5) the base (115). Re claim 9, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the backing member (102, 103) comprises at least one backing board (102, 103) configured to span (Fig. 5) at least two covering elements (125) for connecting together the covering elements (125). Re claim 10, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the backing member (102, 103) is fixed only to (Fig. 5-6) the attachment means (110). Re claim 11, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein attachment means (110) is fixed directly to (Fig. 5-6) the backing member (102, 103). Re claim 13, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the backing member (102, 103) is formed at least partially from cementitious and/or composite material ([0009]). Re claim 14, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the backing member (102, 103) comprises a first board portion (102) and a second board portion (103; [0146]; Fig. 5), wherein a first board portion (102) is a fascia-forming face (Fig. 5-6) while the second board portion (103; [0146]; Fig. 5) is a soffit-forming face (Fig. 5-6), or vice-versa (Fig. 5-6). Re claim 15, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 9, wherein the base (115) of the attachment channel (110) is fixed to the second board portion (102) or to the first board portion (103; [0146]; Fig. 5) of the backing member (102, 103). Re claim 16, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 9, wherein one of the sidewalls (116a) of the attachment channel (110) is fixed to (Fig. 5) the first board portion (102) or to the second board portion (103; [0146]; Fig. 5) of the backing member (102, 103). Re claim 17, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 9, wherein the base (115) and one sidewall (116a) of the attachment channel (110) are fixed to different portions (Fig. 5-6) of the backing member (102, 103). Re claim 19, Coyle discloses a building assembly ([0146]) comprising covering elements ([0151]; 125) and a support arrangement (101) for supporting covering elements ([0151]; 125) on a soffit ([0146]) and/or a fascia of a building ([0146]), the support arrangement (101) comprising a backing member (102, 103) for receiving covering elements ([0151]; 125) and an attachment means (110) extending longitudinally along the length (Fig. 6) of the backing member (102, 103) for attaching ([0146]) the support arrangement (101) to a building or a building component ([0146]) such that it forms a part of the building ([0146]) and wherein no support gussets (Fig. 6; 108 being a “reinforcing flange” and not a gusset; and where a gusset is defined as a sheet of metal for connection between beams, girders and/or columns) are provided spaced apart along the length (Fig. 6) of the support arrangement (101). Re claim 20, Coyle discloses a method of constructing ([0120]) a support arrangement (101) for supporting covering elements ([0151]; 125) on a soffit ([0146]) and/or a fascia of a building ([0146]), the support arrangement (101) comprising a backing member (102, 103) for receiving covering elements ([0151]; 125) and an attachment means (110) extending longitudinally along the length (Fig. 6) of the backing member (102, 103) for attaching ([0146]) the support arrangement (101) to a building or a building component ([0146]) such that it forms a part of the building ([0146]) and wherein no support gussets (Fig. 6; 108 being a “reinforcing flange” and not a gusset; and where a gusset is defined as a sheet of metal for connection between beams, girders and/or columns) are provided spaced apart along the length (Fig. 6) of the support arrangement (101). 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) 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyle (US 2020/0318354) (Further, as shown in Applicant’s Fig. 1-2 “Prior Art”). Re claim 12, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the backing member (102, 103) is a metal or metal alloy or steel backing member. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support arrangement of Coyle wherein the backing member is a metal or metal alloy or steel backing member in order to utilize a readily available, durable material. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. Re claim 18, Coyle discloses a support arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the attachment member(s) (110) extend longitudinally along the length (Fig. 6) of the backing member (102, 103) for attaching ([0146]) the support arrangement (101) to a building or a building component ([0146]), but fails to disclose wherein the attachment means comprises a plurality of attachment members generally spaced apart over a depth of the one or more backing members and/or generally spaced apart over a length of the backing member. However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support arrangement of Coyle wherein the attachment means comprises a plurality of attachment members generally spaced apart over a depth of the one or more backing members and/or generally spaced apart over a length of the backing member in order to provide additional attachment locations, providing a stronger, more rigid connection to the building or building component. In addition, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm. 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)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. KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN Primary Examiner Art Unit 3635 /KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595666
PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594442
FALL RESTRAINT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595662
WALL PANEL CLIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595657
Formwork Panel of a Formwork System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577791
System of structural support framework for elevated flooring
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+30.8%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 918 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