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 .
Election/Restrictions
In the office action mailed 05 December 2024, the product claims 30-36 drawn to a recreation vehicle were withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. New claims 37-40 are also drawn to the non-elected product and are withdrawn for the same reasons.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-29 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 16, line 32, the examiner suggests --first composite component--. The suggestion is consistent with the terminology used throughout the claims and thereby improves claim readability. The limitation “the first composite panel” is considered to have sufficient antecedent basis because the cured first composite component is clearly a panel. Accordingly, this objection is directed to consistent claim terminology, not an issue of clarity.
Regarding claim 16, line 45, --of-- should be inserted after “one” to correct the grammar.
Regarding claim 16, the claim should end with a period, not a comma.
Regarding claim 16, line 49, --of-- should be inserted after “one” to correct the grammar.
Regarding claim 19, line 9, “the a” should be changed to --the-- to correct the grammar.
Regarding claim 26, line 31, the examiner suggests --composite component--. The suggestion is consistent with the terminology used throughout the claims and thereby improves claim readability.
Regarding claim 26, line 42, --to-- should be inserted before “a depth” to correct the grammar.
Regarding claim 26, line 54, “the recessed edge of” is repeated twice. One instance should be deleted to correct this redundancy or typographical error.
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 16-29 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.
Regarding claim 16, line 7, the examiner does not find any teaching in the original disclosure or claims of the new limitation of at least five layers. Accordingly, Applicant was not in possession of this limitation at the time the application was filed. The examiners suggests --and
Regarding claim 16, line 64, the examiner does not find any teaching in the original disclosure or claims of the limitation of “at least one groove”. There are teachings of a groove and two grooves, but these teachings do not support the range “at least one”, which includes three or more grooves. Accordingly, Applicant was not in possession of this limitation at the time the application was filed. The examiner suggests replacing “at least one groove” with --a first groove-- and consistently referencing --the first groove-- in lines 64, 71 and 73.
Regarding claim 16, lines 75-81, this language introduces new matter in that it appears to indicate both of the first and second composite components are wall panels, both are roof panels or both are floor panels. An examination of Applicant’s Figure 11 illustrates that the joints are between a wall panel and roof panel or between a wall panel and a floor panel. Accordingly, Applicant was not in possession of this limitation at the time the application was filed.
Regarding claim 19, lines 12-13, “a location adjacent the top interior side of the third sheet” is not taught in the original disclosure or claims in combination with the limitation (h) of parent claim 16, which references the interior side of the second sheet. Accordingly, Applicant was not in possession of this limitation at the time the application was filed. The examiner’s opinion is that Applicant intended, in claim 19 lines 12-13, to indicate insertion to the interior side of the second sheet of the first composite component as in claim 16 limitation (h).
Regarding claim 26, line 49, the examiner does not find any teaching in the original disclosure or claims of the limitation of “at least one groove”. There are teachings of a groove and two grooves, but these teachings do not support the range “at least one”, which includes three or more grooves. Accordingly, Applicant was not in possession of this limitation at the time the application was filed.
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 16-29 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 16, line 7, “at least five layers” is recited. It is unclear which of the at least five layers are being referenced by “the five layers”. As noted above, the examiner suggests deleting “at least”, which would also correct this issue of clarity.
Regarding claim 16, line 50, it is not clear what is meant by “its length or width portions”. The examiner believes Applicant intended to delete “portions” in the amendment, for example as above in lines 46-47. The examiner suggests deleting “portions”.
Regarding claim 16, lines 75-81, this language is confusing for two reasons. First, it appears to indicate both of the first and second composite components are wall panels, both are roof panels or both are floor panels. An examination of Applicant’s Figure 11 illustrates that the joints are between a wall panel and roof panel or between a wall panel and a floor panel. This language also refers to “joints therebetween”. Only a single joint is formed in the preceding limitations of claim 16. It is unclear if this previously indicated joint falls within the “joints therebetween” recited in line 79. The examiner suggests replacing this language with --(i) wherein the first and second composite components are the recreational vehicle composite components, wherein the joint between the first and second composite components defines an interface between a composite wall panel and a composite roof panel or between a composite wall panel and a composite floor panel, and wherein the joint provides for assembly of a one piece fully insulated recreation vehicle structure configured for highway travel.--
Regarding claim 19, lines 12-13, “a location adjacent the top interior side of the third sheet” is confusing. While the third sheet implicitly has a top interior side, i.e. the side disposed against the foam core, it is unclear why Applicant would indicate the second flange is inserted to this location. The examiner’s opinion is that Applicant intended to indicate insertion to the interior side of the second sheet of the first composite component as in claim 16 limitation (h).
Regarding claim 19, line 13, it is unclear if the third sheet belongs to the first or the second composite component.
Regarding claim 26, lines 55 and 57, “at least one groove” is recited at line 49. It is unclear which of the at least one groove is being referenced by instances of “the groove” in lines 55 and 57.
Regarding claim 26, lines 59-64, this language is confusing. The preceding limitations of claim 26 indicate forming a joint between first and second composite components. It is unclear how first and second composite components, i.e. two components, can comprise wall panels and roof panels, i.e. four or more panels. Similarly, the language of wall panels and floor panels is confusing. An examination of Applicant’s Figure 11 illustrates that the joints are between a wall panel and roof panel or between a wall panel and a floor panel. The examiner suggests replacing this language with --(i) wherein the first and second composite components are recreational vehicle composite components, wherein the joint between the first and second composite components defines an interface between a composite wall panel and a composite roof panel or between a composite wall panel and a composite floor panel, and wherein the first and second composite components are configured for highway travel.--
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The objections and new matter rejections also need to be overcome, for example in the manner suggested above.
Regarding claims 16 and 26, the closest prior art of record was applied in the previous office action, mailed 05 December 2024. The claims are allowed in view of the most recent amendment filed 05 January 2026, for the reasons provided in the arguments. The detailed arguments persuasively indicate how the currently amended claims overcome the previously applied grounds of rejection over prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 January 2026 were mostly persuasive, as further addressed below.
While the amended claims have relatively minor issues of clarity, objections and new matter, as detailed above, suggestions have been provided to place the claims in condition for allowance. As noted above, the amendments and arguments have overcome the previously applied grounds of rejection over prior art. Applicant’s amendments to the specification, and arguments, have also overcome the previously indicated issues of new matter. The examiner does not find new matter in the specification or drawings as currently amended on 05 January 2026.
The amendments and arguments have also overcome previously indicated issues of new matter in the claims with the exception of “at least one groove”. Claims 16 and 26 are drawn to forming a joint between first and second composite components. All of the described joints use one or two grooves, and the language “at least one groove” is not found in the original disclosure or claims. Applicant points to Figure 9 which shows four grooves in a composite component. However this also does not support the range encompassed by “at least one groove”. Moreover, Figure 9 is drawn to a shelf structure rather than a joint between a wall and roof panel or a wall and floor panel as currently claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745