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 1-17 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of reference(s) in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter type rejection.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “thereby enabling removal of a profile element….by moving the profile element upwards.” However, after a review of the original disclosure (and of the disclosure of the applications to which the pending application claims priority, if such priority is claimed), the Examiner can find no support for this limitation. The language requires a particular manner of removal. However, nowhere in the specification are the particulars of a manner of removal disclosed. Thus, there appears to be no support as originally filed for the limitation. In the event that the Applicant is of the opinion that this language is supported as originally filed, the Examiner requests Applicant to please cite to where the language is supported as originally filed.
Re claim 8, claim 8 recites, “thereby enabling removal of a profile element….by moving the profile element upwards.” However, after a review of the original disclosure (and of the disclosure of the applications to which the pending application claims priority, if such priority is claimed), the Examiner can find no support for this limitation. The language requires a particular manner of removal. However, nowhere in the specification are the particulars of a manner of removal disclosed. Thus, there appears to be no support as originally filed for the limitation. In the event that the Applicant is of the opinion that this language is supported as originally filed, the Examiner requests Applicant to please cite to where the language is supported as originally filed.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-17 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 1-14, 16-17 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, “thereby enabling removal of a profile element….by moving the profile element upwards.” However, after a review of the original disclosure (and of the disclosure of the applications to which the pending application claims priority, if such priority is claimed), the Examiner can find no support for this limitation. The language requires a particular manner of removal. However, nowhere in the specification are the particulars of a manner of removal disclosed. Thus, it is unclear how the profile element can be removed in the manner claimed. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as being directed to the intended use of the claimed invention and product by process.
In addition, claim 1 recites, “the first direction” on page 2 line 11, page 2 line 12, page 2 line 14, page 2 line 16, page 2 line 17-18, page 3 line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the first vertical direction” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 1 recites, “the façade element” on page 2 last line, “the transverse direction” on page 3 line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the façade panel,” “a transverse direction” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 8, claim 8 recites, “thereby enabling removal of a profile element….by moving the profile element upwards.” However, after a review of the original disclosure (and of the disclosure of the applications to which the pending application claims priority, if such priority is claimed), the Examiner can find no support for this limitation. The language requires a particular manner of removal. However, nowhere in the specification are the particulars of a manner of removal disclosed. Thus, it is unclear how the profile element can be removed in the manner claimed. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as being directed to the intended use of the claimed invention and product by process.
Re claim 16, claim 16 recites, “its” in line 2 and again in line 2. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. For the purposes of this examation, this langue will be interpreted as referring to “the second leg” and “the recessed section.”
In addition, claim 1, on which claim 16 depends, already introduces a stop on the second leg. It is unclear if this is the same stop or a different stop. It appears this langue is intended to recite, “the stop” in and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 17, claim 17 recites, “its” in line 2 and again in line 2. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. For the purposes of this examation, this langue will be interpreted as referring to “the second leg” and “the recessed section.”
Claims 2-7, 9-14 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata (GB2155970) in view of Strausheim (US 4,674,240).
Re claim 1, Kamata discloses a profile system (Fig. 14) configured for fastening a respective facade panel (15) to a building wall or a facade beam (Fig. 14), comprising:
an integrally formed profile element (4) extending in a first vertical direction (Fig. 13, vertically) having
a receiving section (32) configured for receiving a mounting section (34-36) of an adjacent profile element (4, see Fig. 14) at a first end (top end of 4),
a fastening section (31-33, and the portion of 5 between 36 and 32) provided between (Fig. 13) the receiving section (32) and the mounting section (34-36) and configured for fastening (Fig. 14) the fastening section (31-33) fixedly (Fig. 14, as the panel 15 is not intended to move once fixed) to a respective façade panel (15) and
a mounting section (34-36) configured to mount to a receiving section (32) of another adjacent profile element (4, see Fig. 14) at a second end (bottom end of 4) opposite to (Fig. 13-14) the first end (top end of 4), wherein an open end (between 32b and 37) of the receiving section (32) forms a receiving space (between 32b and 37) defined by a first leg (at 37) and a second leg (32b) extending both at least partially in (Fig. 13) the first direction (Fig. 13, vertically), and said receiving section (between 32b and 37) being configured to positively receive (Fig. 14) the mounting section (34-36) between (Fig. 14) the first leg (37) and the stop (as modified below) of the second leg (32b) transversely to (Fig. 14) the first direction (vertically Fig. 13),
wherein the profile element (4) includes a cross-strut (33) extending transversely to (as transverse is defined as “acting, lying or being across” per Merriam-Webster) the first direction (vertically) from the profile element (4) forming a stop edge (edge of 33) for the façade element (15) to be mounted (Fig. 14) and positioning (Fig. 14) the profile element (4) relative to the top edge (top of 15) of the respective façade panel (15), and
wherein the mounting section (34-36) of the profile element (4) extends beyond (Fig. 13) the cross strut (33) having a support surface (vertical surface of 33 adjacent to 15) that serves to fasten (Fig. 14; Page 5 Lines 56-68) the profile element (4) to a façade (15), as well as
a recessed section (the space formed on the rear of 4 by 34 and 36) adjoining the support surface (33, indirectly) that positively fits in the receiving space (between 32b and 37) in the transverse direction (Fig. 13) and
wherein a height (of 32b, shown in Fig. 19) of the second leg (32b) is equal to or greater than (Fig. 19 showing 32b having a bigger height than the recessed section at 34) a height of the recessed section (at 34), thereby enabling removal of a profile element (4) arranged between two other profile elements (4) by moving the profile element upwards (this language being product by process, and directed to the intended use thereof),
but fails to disclose the second leg having a stop extending transversely to the first direction.
However, Strausheim discloses the second leg (6a) having a stop (8a) extending transversely to (horizontally) the first direction (vertically).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profile system of Kamata with the second leg having a stop extending transversely to the first direction as disclosed by Strausheim in order to securely lock profiles together even if subjected to heavy loads (Col 2 lines 6-16), and to provide a thinning of the insertion gap for better alignment and rigidity of the connection between profile elements.
It should further be noted that the language “thereby enabling removal of a profile element arranged between two other profile elements by moving the profile element upwards” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 2, Kamata as modified discloses the profile system of claim 1, wherein the receiving space (between 32b and 37) is U-shaped (Fig. 13) and wherein the first leg (at 37 of the receiving space (between 32b and 37) lies in the same plane as (Fig. 13) the fastening section (the portion of 5 between 36 and 32, of 31-33 and the portion of 5 between 36 and 32) resting on the back (rear of 15) of the respective facade panel (15).
Re claim 3, Kamata as modified discloses the profile system of claim 2, wherein the second leg (32b) of the receiving space (between 32b and 37) lies in the same plane (Fig. 13) as the mounting section (34-36, as a plane may be made angled from 32b to 34-36, because the language does not define any particular orientation of the plane).
Re claim 4, Kamata as modified discloses the profile system of claim 3, wherein the recessed section (34/36) is a stepped recess (via 34/36) formed at a free end (top of upper 34/36) of the mounting section (34-36).
Re claim 5, Kamata as modified discloses the profile element of claim 3, Strausheim discloses wherein stop (8a) is aligned substantially transversely (Fig. 2) to second the leg (6a) and formed at a free end (bottom of 6a) of the second leg (6a) of the receiving space (at 25).
Re claim 6, Kamata as modified discloses the profile system of claim 1, wherein the profile element (4) is made of extruded aluminum (Page 2 lines 95-97).
Re claim 7, Kamata as modified discloses the profile system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the profile element (4) has a greater height than a height of the respective facade panel (15).
However, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profile system of Kamata wherein the profile element has a greater height than a height of the facade panel in order to increase the strength of the profile with respect to the respective façade panel, as a larger or longer profile would allow for greater strength to carry a heavier panel, or better secure a façade panel.
Re claim 16, Kamata as modified discloses the facade system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the second leg comprises a stop at its free end, the stop being configured to fix the recessed section with regard to its horizontal movement play within the receiving space.
However, Strausheim discloses wherein the second leg (6a) has a stop (8a) at its free end (at 8a), the stop being configured to fix the recessed section with regard to its horizontal movement play within the receiving space (this being a statement of intended use).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profile system of Kamata wherein the second leg comprises a stop at its free end, the stop being configured to fix the recessed section with regard to its horizontal movement play within the receiving space as disclosed by Strausheim in order to securely lock profiles together even if subjected to heavy loads (Col 2 lines 6-16), and to provide a thinning of the insertion gap for better alignment and rigidity of the connection between profile elements.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata (GB2155970) in view of Timko et al (“Timko”) (US 2017/0362824).
Re claim 8, Kamata discloses a facade system (Fig. 12-14) for mounting on buildings (Fig. 14) having a plurality of facade panels (15) and a plurality of profile elements (4), each of the plurality of profile elements (4) mounted to a respective one of the plurality of facade panels (15), the plurality of profile elements (4) each configured for arrangement on a back (back of 15) of a respective facade panel (15) and for fastening (14) the respective facade panel (15) to a building wall or a facade beam (Fig. 14), each profile element (4) integrally formed (Fig. 13) and having
a receiving section (32) configured to receive and connect to a mounting section (34-36) of a first adjacent profile element (4),
a fastening section configured (5 between 36 and 32, and 30 and 31) to fasten the profile element (4) to a respective facade panel (15) and
a mounting section (34-36) configured to mount the profile element (4) to a second adjacent profile element (4),
wherein the receiving section (32) of each of the plurality of profile elements (4) defines a receiving space (between 32b and 37) configured to receive a free end (35) of the mounting section (34-36) of an adjacent profile element (4) therein (Fig. 12), and
wherein each of the plurality of profile elements (4) includes a cross-strut (33) forming a stop edge (edge of 33) and positions (Fig. 14) each of the plurality of profile elements (4) to the respective facade panel (15),
wherein the mounting section (34-36) of each of the plurality of profile elements (4) extends from the cross-strut (33) toward the receiving space (between 32b and 37) of an adjacent profile element (4) beyond the top side (top of 15, see Fig. 14) of the respective façade panel (15) and wherein a distal end (end of 34 at 35) of the mounting section (34-36) forms a recessed section (34) and
wherein a height of the second leg (32b) is equal to or greater than (Fig. 19) a height of the recessed section (34) such that the recess (34) fits within the receiving space (between 32b and 37), thereby enabling removal of a profile element (4) arranged between two other profile elements (4) by moving the profile element upwards (this language being product by process, and directed to the intended use thereof),
a distal end (end of 34 at 35) of the mounting section (34-36) extends from a distal end (end of 34) of the recessed section (34) toward the respective façade panel (15) and abuts an inside surface (34 abuts 37) of the first leg (37) of the receiving section (32) of the adjacent profile element (4, see Fig. 14),
but fails to disclose the cross-strut extends over and abuts a top side of the respective facade panel.
However, Timko discloses the cross-strut (212) extends over and abuts (Fig. 11A) a top side (top of 102) of the respective facade panel (102).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the facade system of Kamata with the cross-strut extends over and abuts a top side of the respective facade panel as disclosed by Timko in order to space adjacent panels uniformly.
It should further be noted that the language “thereby enabling removal of a profile element arranged between two other profile elements by moving the profile element upwards” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 9, Kamata as modified discloses the facade system of claim 8, wherein each of the plurality of facade panels (15) with the plurality of profile elements (4) is mounted by screws (14, Page 3 lines 72-73) to a wall of the building or on the facade beam (Fig. 14), the screws (14) placed in an area (Fig. 14) of the mounting section (34-36, as “an area” can be defined anywhere on the structure with respect to the mounting section).
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata (GB2155970) in view of Timko et al (“Timko”) (US 2017/0362824) and Bordener (US 2016/0060876).
Re claim 10, Kamata as modified discloses the facade system of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein each of the plurality of profile elements are screwed to respective ones of the plurality of facade panels.
However, Bordener discloses wherein each of the plurality of profile elements (10) are screwed (70, 72) to respective ones of the plurality of facade panels (6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the façade system of Kamata wherein each of the plurality of profile elements are screwed to respective ones of the plurality of facade panels as disclosed by Bordener in order to use a secure, cheap, readily available connection method, and using screws of Bordener with the façade system of Kamata would increase rigidity and strength of the connection between the profile elements and panels.
Re claim 11, Kamata as modified discloses the facade system of claim 10, wherein each of the plurality of facade panels (15) are mounted so that a gap (between 15 and 14) is formed between the facade panels (15), and the gap (between 14-15) is sufficiently largely dimensioned (Fig. 14, as the head of 14 is exposed) to allow for a tool to reach screws (the cited gaps are sufficiently large to allow a tool to reach screws) in the area of the mounting section (34-36, as “an area” can be defined anywhere on the structure with respect to the mounting section).
Re claim 12, Kamata as modified discloses the facade system of claim 11, wherein at least some of the plurality of façade panels (15) are superposed facade panels (15) and are positioned such that a stepped recess (portion of 15 which is received by 32) protrudes into the receiving space (32).
Re claim 13, Kamata as discloses the facade system of claim 12, wherein the stepped recess (portion of 15 which is received by 32) protruding into the receiving space (32) is fixed by a stop (32e) with respect to a horizontal movement play (Fig. 14) of the stepped recess (portion of 15 which is received by 32).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata (GB2155970) in view of Timko et al (“Timko”) (US 2017/0362824) and Molteni (9,506,252).
Re claim 14, Kamata discloses the facade system of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of facade panels are made of glass fiber concrete panels, fiber cement panels or laminate panels.
However, Molteni discloses wherein the plurality of facade panels (50) are made of glass fiber concrete panels, fiber cement panels or laminate panels (Col 8 lines 17-19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the façade system of Kamata wherein the plurality of facade panels are made of glass fiber concrete panels, fiber cement panels or laminate panels as disclosed by Molteni in order to use a cheap, readily available, aesthetically pleasing material, as laminate is extremely well known and common in the art.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata (GB2155970) in view of Dickey et al (“Dickey”) (2015/0233122) and Timko et al (“Timko”) (US 2017/0362824).
Re claim 15, Kamata discloses a construction (Fig. 12-14) for mounting a facade panel (15) on a building wall or a facade beam (Fig. 14), comprising:
a first profile element (4) configured for attachment to a back (rear of 15) of a respective facade panel (15) and for fastening (Fig. 14) the respective facade panel (15) to the building wall or facade beam (Fig. 14), the profile element (4) integrally formed (Fig. 13) and having a first receiving section (32), a first fastening section (the portion of 5 between 36 and 32, of 31-33 and the portion of 5 between 36 and 32) and a first mounting section (34-36), wherein the first receiving section (32) forms a receiving space (between 32b and 37) at one end thereof (Fig. 13) and the first fastening section (the portion of 5 between 36 and 32, of 31-33 and the portion of 5 between 36 and 32) is positioned with respect to the respective facade panel (15) with a first cross-strut (33) forming a first stop edge (edge of 33) and is configured to position (Fig. 14) the first profile element (4) relative to the respective facade panel (15),
a second profile element (another 4) consisting of a second mounting section (for the second profile element, the portion above 32 may be the mounting section) and a second recess (32) formed thereon and forming a lowermost part (Fig. 14) of the façade panel (15), and
a third profile element (another element 4) having a third mounting section (34-36) along the building wall or along the facade beam (Fig. 14) and being flush vertically oriented therewith (Fig. 14, portion 36 being vertically oriented and flush with the wall) for fastening (Fig. 14) a peripheral top facade panel (15),
wherein each of the first, second and third mounting section (34-36) of each of the first, second and third profile elements (4) extends from a respective cross-strut (33) that extends over (Fig. 14) a top edge (top of 15) of a respective façade panel (15) and extends towards (Fig. 14) a respective receiving space (between 32b and 37) of an adjacent profile element (4) beyond the top side (top of 15, see Fig. 14) of the respective façade panel (15), wherein a distal end (end of 34 at 35) of each of the first, second and third mounting section (34-36) forms a recessed section (34) and wherein a height of the second leg (32b) of a respective receiving section (32) is equal to or greater than (Fig. 4) a height of a respective recessed section (34) such that the respective recess section (34) fits within the receiving space (between 32b and 37) of the adjacent profile element (4), a distal end (end of 34 at 35) of the respective mounting section (34-36) depending from a distal end (end of 34) of the respective recessed section (34) toward the respective façade panel (15) and abuts an inside surface (34 abuts 37) of a first leg (37) of the respective receiving section (32) of the adjacent profile element (4, see Fig. 14),
but fails to disclose a kit, the cross-strut extends over and abuts a top side of the respective facade panel.
However, Dickey discloses a kit ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the construction of Kamata with the kit as disclosed by Dickey in order to expedite construction of the façade in accost effective manner with high quality ([0002]).
In addition, Timko discloses the cross-strut (212) extends over and abuts (Fig. 11A) a top side (top of 102) of the respective facade panel (102).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the construction kit of Kamata with the cross-strut extends over and abuts a top side of the respective facade panel as disclosed by Timko in order to space adjacent panels uniformly.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata (GB2155970) in view of Timko et al (“Timko”) (US 2017/0362824) and Strausheim (US 4,674,240).
Re claim 17, Kamata as modified discloses the facade system of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the second leg comprises a stop at its free end, the stop being configured to fix the recessed section with regard to its horizontal movement play within the receiving space.
However, Strausheim discloses wherein the second leg (6a) has a stop (8a) at its free end (at 8a), the stop being configured to fix the recessed section with regard to its horizontal movement play within the receiving space (this being a statement of intended use).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profile system of Kamata wherein the second leg comprises a stop at its free end, the stop being configured to fix the recessed section with regard to its horizontal movement play within the receiving space as disclosed by Strausheim in order to securely lock profiles together even if subjected to heavy loads (Col 2 lines 6-16), and to provide a thinning of the insertion gap for better alignment and rigidity of the connection between profile elements.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is partially persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 (for the reasons stated in the previous rejection) is hereby partially withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection as per the above, and additional rejections under 35 USC 112 were either not remarked upon or not amended and are maintained in the above.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102 and/or 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amended language of claim 1. This language is shown in Kamata in Fig. 3 and Fig. 19, particularly where 32b is shown as having a greater height than the recess at 34.
Applicant further argues that the combination teaches away from the claimed invention. However, the specific geometry argued is shown in the primary reference Kamata, and need not be modified.
Applicant argues that Kamata fails to disclosed the claimed height relationship. This argument is addressed above.
Applicant argues that Strausheim is not relevant to the claimed height relationship. Strausheim is not relied upon disclosing the claimed height relationships rendering the argument moot.
Applicant next argues that the motivation to combine teaches away form the claimed invention because the language requires removal. Securely locking panels together does not prohibit removal. If a person of ordinary skill were to screw boards together, those boards would be considered securely locked together, but still be removable. Thus, the proposed combination does not teach away from the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant argues that the Examiner failed to give patentable weight to the feature regarding the claimed heights. It is not readily apparent how Applicant states no weight was given when specific citations to the prior art disclosing the claimed height arrangement was expressly provided. Kamata is not silent as to this relationship. It is specifically shown in Fig. 19. Just because Kamata doesn’t utilize words to describe the feature does not preclude Kamata from disclosing the feature.
Applicant next argues that Timko teaches away from the claimed invention and is impermissible hindsight, but provides no evidence for either. Applicant states that one would have to act contrary to Timko’s core teaching, but this is a misinterpretation of the rejection. Timko is not being modified at all. Timko is the secondary reference and is used to modify Kamata. The question is whether the modification would be contrary to the teachings of Kamata. However, as outlined in the above, this would not be the case.
Next, Applicant argues the language in new claims 16-17. This language is addressed in the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the dependent claims are addressed by the above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 on 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, 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
Prosecution Insights