Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/940,642

STRAND SIDING WITH PEBBLED STUCCO TEXTURE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 07, 2024
Examiner
POLLEY, CHRISTOPHER M
Art Unit
1785
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
446 granted / 613 resolved
+7.8% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
643
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
44.9%
+4.9% vs TC avg
§102
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
§112
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 613 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 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. 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rudisill et al (US Publication 20210396010). Rudisill discloses a structural insulated wall and roof sheathing system. The structural panel comprises an OSB oriented strandboard (paragraph 55) with a plurality of strands (paragraph 56). A paper overlay was applied over the substrate to maintain complete coverage (paragraph 105). The paper overlay and substrate are embossed by a mat that is pressed onto the surface under a high temperature (paragraph 113). This is the same method being used within the present invention; therefore, both the paper and wood substrate will be embossed. Further it states that some of the embossments can project into the surface of the panel (paragraph 76). The pattern appears to be a random pattern of raised areas (paragraph 72) with a heigh up to 25mils (paragraph 75). The features of these embossments can be the same or differ in size and shape (paragraph 71), therefore it will read on applicant’s irregular pebbled texture. In the alternative it would have been obvious to have formed an irregular pebbled texture as the shapes and sizes and placement of the embossments can be varied to form a pebbled structure. As to claims 2 and 3, Rudisill discloses that the elements can be similar or different with a random pattern appearance (paragraphs 71 and 75). Therefore, it would read on applicant’s claim of emulating pebbled stucco and being a random pattern. In the alternative it would have been obvious to have formed a pebbled stucco texture with a random pattern as Rudisill discloses possible patterns being present and it would be an aesthetic design choice to have formed such pattern of a pebbled stucco texture with a random pattern. As to claims 4-7, Rudisill discloses that the elements have a length and a width with an elongated shape (paragraph 74). Further as seen in figure 4a. the angle at which the elements appear to be would be about 45 degrees. In the alternative it would have been to have modified Rudisill and had the angle for the elements be less than 70 and more than 20 in order to prevent wrinkling and tearing of the paper. As to claim 8, Rudisill discloses that the distance between the peaks and valleys can be 10/1000 of an inch (paragraph 113). As to claims 9 and 10, Rudisill discloses first and second textured features within the features can be of similar or different shapes sizes and patterns (paragraphs 71-72. However, is silent to horizonal middle elements with some connected to adjacent high elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have had the first element be the high elements and the second elements be the middle elements as Rudisill discloses that these elements can be different sizes and shapes and therefore would be an aesthetic design choice. As to connecting the middle to the high elements Rudisill teaches that any shape and pattern can be formed and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have connected these elements to form an aesthetically pleasing pattern of elements as Rudisill teaches one how to adjust the elements in any desired way of varying the distance and heigh and shape of these elements. As to claims 11-13, Rudisill disclose that the paper overlay embossed is prevent wrinkling and tearing of the paper (paragraph 105). Therefore, it will inherently prevent underlying telegraphing from the substrate. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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. /CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 07, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594689
METALLIC STONE SLABS, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583966
CURABLE RESIN, CURED PRODUCT THEREOF, RESIN COMPOSITION, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING CURABLE RESIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12568161
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558864
GLASS ARTICLE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551307
STERILE ADAPTER DRIVE DISKS FOR USE IN A ROBOTIC SURGICAL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+26.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 613 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