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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a second Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-19, as amended 04 MAR. 2025, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kafarowski US 5644891 A in view of Bengtson et al. US 5007218 A.
As per claim 1 Kafarowski teaches a prefabricated wall assembly (“building structure” FIG. 7) comprising:
an outer frame assembly (connecting ties 55, FIG. 7) connected to a masonry panel assembly (bricks 11, FIG. 7), the masonry panel assembly (bricks 11, FIG. 7) comprising
a plurality of masonry units (see superposed bricks 11 compressed into one another under gravity, FIG. 7)
the plurality of masonry units being compressed into one another under gravity (FIG. 7);
wherein the masonry panel (bricks 11, FIG. 5, 7) defines a top surface (top surface 12, FIG. 5, 7) and a bottom surface (unidentified bottom surface at bottom of FIG. 5, opposite “12”, proximate arrow at 56, FIG. 5; the assembly of FIG. 7 would necessarily have a bottom surface as well); and
an inner frame assembly (structural member 63, FIG. 7) attached to an insulation panel (insulation 45, FIG. 7);
the masonry panel (bricks 11, FIG. 7) and the insulation panel (insulation 45, FIG. 7) being spaced at a distance (see “distance” FIG. 7) from each other by an air gap;
the inner frame assembly (structural member 63, FIG. 7) and the outer frame assembly (connecting ties 55, FIG. 7) being securely connected to each other at one or more connecting assemblies (see assembly surrounding element 55 and 63, FIG. 7); and
the prefabricated wall assembly being configured for being connected to the outside of a building structure (floor member 64, FIG. 7; note distinctness between floor member 64, FIG. 7 and diagonal portions 64, FIG. 8; in this claim and throughout, floor member 64 is being referenced as the claimed “building structure”) as cladding.
Kafarowski but fails to explicitly disclose:
a clamping arrangement,
the plurality of masonry units being compressed into at least one masonry panel by the clamping arrangement;
wherein the clamping arrangement includes a first compression member adapted for compressing the top surface of the masonry panel,
the first compression member extending substantially along the entire top surface of the masonry panel;
a second compression member adapted for compressing the bottom surface of the masonry panel,
the second compression member extending substantially along the entire length of the bottom surface of the masonry panel; and
a tensioning arrangement configured for pulling the first compression member and second compression member towards each other to thereby compress the masonry panel.
Bengtson teaches these arrangements for supporting a prefabricated wall assembly, specifically:
a clamping arrangement (see “tensioned through the use of nuts 19 bearing upon steel washers 20” 3:23 and “tying arrangement provided to transmit force of the post-tensioning rods to the footer” 5:16),
the plurality of masonry units (blocks 11, FiG. 1) being compressed into at least one masonry panel (wall 10, FIG. 1) by the clamping arrangement (see FIG. 1);
wherein the clamping arrangement includes a first compression member (plate 18, FIG. 1) adapted for compressing the top surface of the masonry panel,
the first compression member (plate 18, FIG. 1) extending substantially along the entire top surface of the masonry panel (see 18 extending left to right, FIG. 1);
a second compression member (reinforcing bar 31, FIG. 2) adapted for compressing the bottom surface of the masonry panel (see 31, FIG. 2 and dotted line, FIG. 3),
the second compression member extending substantially along the entire length of the bottom surface of the masonry panel (see FIG. 2-3); and
a tensioning arrangement (“particular tension placed on the rod” 5:14) configured for pulling the first compression member and second compression member towards each other to thereby compress the masonry panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Kafarowski by including the clamping arrangement as taught by Bengtson in order to uniformly prestress the bricks, thereby increasing their resistance to deformation.
As per claim 2 Kafarowski in view of Bengtson teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Kafarowski further discloses at least one or more support brackets (connecting brackets 62, FIG. 7; note distinctness between bracket 62, FIG. 7 and V-portion 62, FIG. 8; in this claim and throughout, brackets 62 are being referenced as the claimed “support bracket”) on which the prefabricated wall assembly may be supported by a building structure (floor member 64, FIG. 7).
As per claim 4 Kafarowski in view of Bengtson teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Kafarowski further discloses including slinging formations (vertical portions of 55, FIG. 7; these are recognized as “associated with” —as broadly claimed— the outer frame) associated with one or both selected from the outer frame assembly (connecting ties 55, FIG. 7) and the inner frame assembly (structural member 63, FIG. 7), the slinging formations being configured for slinging (see FIG. 7; the assembly is configured to —capable of being— handled, or “slinged”, as broadly claimed) of the prefabricated wall assembly during installation of the prefabricated wall assembly on a building structure (floor member 64, FIG. 7).
As per claim 6 Kafarowski in view of Bengtson teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Kafarowski further discloses the connecting assemblies (see assembly surrounding element 55 and 63, FIG. 7) include a thermal barrier layer (see mortar 52, FIG. 7; this is recognized as “thermal barrier… composed of a material that is heat resistant, such as cementitious material” as described in the instant specification at “[252]” page 36).
As per claim 7 Kafarowski in view of Bengtson teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Bengtson further discloses the tensioning arrangement (“particular tension placed on the rod” 5:14) comprises:
at least one or more tensioning elongate members (rod 32, FIG. 3); and
at least one or more fasteners (nuts 19, steel washers 20, FIG. 1 and clips or wire 33, FIG. 2) for fastening the tensioning elongate member between the first compression member and second compression member under tension.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Kafarowski in view of Bengtson by including the rods and fasteners as taught by Bengtson in order to releasably maintain the tensioning arrangement, allowing disconnection if needed for maintenance thereof.
As per claim 8 Kafarowski in view of Bengtson teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Kafarowski further discloses the insulation panel (insulation 45, FIG. 7) includes at least one or more insulation layers (see “at least one or more insulation layers” at 45, FIG. 7; this is recognized as at least one insulation layer).
As per claim 10 Kafarowski in view of Bengtson teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Kafarowski further discloses the outer frame assembly (connecting ties 55, FIG. 7) and the inner frame assembly (structural member 63, FIG. 7) are connected to each other (see (connecting brackets 62, FIG. 7; note distinctness between bracket 62, FIG. 7 and V-portion 62, FIG. 8; in this claim and throughout, brackets 62 are being referenced as the claimed “connected to each other around the periphery” because they are near the top —or "the periphery”— in FIG. 7; see also ) around the periphery of the masonry panel (bricks 11, FIG. 7) and the insulation panel (insulation 45, FIG. 7).
As per claim 18 Kafarowski in view of Bengtson teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Kafarowski further discloses a building structure (floor member 64, FIG. 7) including a prefabricated wall assembly (“building structure” FIG. 7) as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 3, 5, and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kafarowski in view of Bengtson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lestini et al. US 20190048584 A1 (Lestini).
As per claim 3 Kafarowski in view of Bengtson teaches the limitations according to claim 1, but the combination fails to
explicitly disclose:
a wall connector arrangement configured for securely engaging a prefabricated wall assembly with an adjacent similar prefabricated wall assembly.
Lestini teaches such a connector capable of being used to position adjacent wall assemblies in various spatial relationships to each other, specifically:
a wall connector arrangement (connecting knots 5, FIG. 3) configured for securely engaging a prefabricated wall assembly with an adjacent similar prefabricated wall assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Kafarowski in view of Bengtson by including the knots as taught by Lestini in order to enable the walls to be secured to addional walls.
As per claim 5 Kafarowski in view of Bengtson and Lestini teaches the limitations according to claim 3, and Kafarowski further discloses the slinging formations (vertical portions of 55, FIG. 7; these are recognized as being configured for —capable of being— received in the holes 17 and 18 which holes are old and well-known in the art) are configured for being received into complementary recesses in an adjacent similar prefabricated wall assembly as the wall connector arrangement.
As per claim 11 Kafarowski in view of Bengtson teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Kafarowski further discloses the insulation panel (insulation 45, FIG. 7) defines a pair of major faces (leftward facing and rightward facing “major” surfaces of 45, FIG. 7) spaced apart from at least one or more minor faces (see upward facing “minor” face, FIG. 7), but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
the inner frame assembly includes rigid edge members that enclose the at least one or more minor faces of the insulation panel.
Lestini teaches such a connector capable of enclosing the edges of the insulation panel, specifically:
the inner frame assembly includes rigid edge members (connecting knots 5, FIG. 3) that enclose the at least one or more minor faces of the insulation panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Kafarowski in view of Bengtson by including the knots as taught by Lestini in order to enable the insulation to be secured to neighboring insulation members.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kafarowski in view of Bengtson as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ciuperca US 9074379 B2.
As per claim 9 Kafarowski in view of Bengtson teaches the limitations according to claim 1 but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
the insulation panel includes a waterproof vapour layer.
Ciuperca teaches such a layer, specifically:
the insulation panel includes a waterproof vapour layer (“any water-proof polymeric material” 9:66)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Kafarowski in view of Bengtson by including the polymeric material as taught by Ciuperca in order to protect the insulation against unnecessary degradation due to water intrusion.
Claim 12-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kafarowski in view of Bengtson as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Farag US 8484916 B2.
As per claim 12-14 Kafarowski in view of Bengtson teaches the limitations according to claim 1 but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 12) the prefabricated panel assembly includes sealing formations for sealing around an outer periphery of the frame;
(Cl. 13) the sealing formation includes at least one or more sealing sheets for extending between the tops of adjacent horizontally spaced prefabricated wall assemblies; and
(Cl. 14) the sealing formation includes gaskets extending vertically along an outer minor face of the inner frame.
Farag teaches such a solution for sealing exterior panels, specifically:
(Cl. 12) the prefabricated panel assembly includes sealing formations (seal 55, FIG. 87) for sealing around an outer periphery of the frame;
(Cl. 13) the sealing formation includes at least one or more sealing sheets (compressible pad 599, FIG. 87) for extending between the tops of adjacent horizontally spaced prefabricated wall assemblies; and
(Cl. 14) the sealing formation includes gaskets (wedge 153, FIG. 87) extending vertically along an outer minor face of the inner frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Kafarowski in view of Bengtson by including the sealing formations, sheets, and gasket as taught by Farag in order to protect the assembly against unnecessary degradation due to water intrusion.
Claim 15-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kafarowski in view of Bengtson as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Delaney et al. US 11203876 B2 (Delaney).
As per claim 15-17 Kafarowski in view of Bengtson teaches the limitations according to claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 15) the outer frame assembly includes rigid side support members securely attachable between the first compression member and the second compression member, the rigid side support members being adjustable in length;
(Cl. 16) the rigid side support members include an adjustment mechanism allowing for adjustable connection of the rigid side member to one or more selected from the first compression member and the second compression member; and
(Cl. 17) at least one or more clip members extending from between the masonry units to the rigid side support members.
Delaney teaches, specifically:
(Cl. 15) the outer frame assembly includes rigid side support members (see vertical mullions, unidentified in FIG. 8; compare to 30a, FIG. 1) securely attachable between the first compression member and the second compression member, the rigid side support members being adjustable in length;
(Cl. 16) the rigid side support members (see vertical mullions, unidentified in FIG. 8; compare to 30a, FIG. 1) include an adjustment mechanism (see four fasteners extending leftward and rightward proximate top of figure, unidentified in FIG. 8; compare to fasteners 98, FIG. 2B) allowing for adjustable connection of the rigid side member to one or more selected from the first compression member and the second compression member; and
(Cl. 17) the prefabricated wall assembly includes at least one or more clip members (see five sided chevron shaped member proximate middle of figure, unidentified, FIG. 8; compare to weather strip 70, FIG. 2B) extending from between the masonry units to the rigid side support members.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Kafarowski in view of Bengtson by including the mullions and weather strip as taught by Delaney in order to support and seal the members because doing so would preserve the life of the assembly.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kafarowski in view of Bengtson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Riefler US 4001988 A.
As per claim 19 Kafarowski in view of Bengtson teaches the limitations according to claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose:
the steps of: manufacturing a prefabricated wall assembly as claimed in claim 1; the method further comprising transporting the prefabricated wall assembly to an installation site; and b. securing the prefabricated wall assembly to a building structure.
Riefler teaches such obvious method steps as those claimed, specifically:
the steps of: manufacturing a prefabricated wall assembly as claimed in claim 1; the method further comprising transporting the prefabricated wall assembly to an installation site (see “prefabricated by the block manufacturer and delivered“ 1:4); and securing the prefabricated wall assembly to a building structure (see “columns 30” FIG. 2; these are recognized as “a building structure” as broadly claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Kafarowski in view of Bengtson by including the method step of premanufacturing and delivering as taught by Riefler in order to lessen on-site labor requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-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 D 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.
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights