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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4 are currently pending.
Examiner Notes and Recommendations
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there is an additional stray period on page 2, start of paragraph 5.
The spacing of the lines of the specification is such as to make reading difficult. New application papers with lines 1 1/2 or double spaced (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(2)) on good quality paper are required. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Regarding claims 1-4,
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Additionally, a single sentence should be used for each claim. Periods should only be used for abbreviations and at the end of a claim only. See MPEP 608.01(m).
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 1-4 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 1,
The limitation requiring the composite stiffened building material comprises of “multiple layers (at least 2)” in combination with the mixture of comma and semicolon punctuation renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the “at least 2” of the layers pertains to. Does it pertain to only the aluminum, formica, plastics, sheet metals, fiberglass, or other strengthening materials list before the first semicolon? Or, does it pertain to the multiple lists of materials after the semicolons? For examination purposes, any of the materials, even those after the semicolons, in the first sentence will apply to the “at least 2” layers requirement.
The limitations requiring “or other strengthening materials”, “other wood products for adequate bonding surface”, and “or other filler materials” are indefinite. The scope of the claims is unclear as it is not clear what would constitute or satisfy “other strengthening materials”, “Other wood products for adequate bonding surface” (or what would be considered adequate), or “other filling materials”. For examination purposes, any additive or filler material would be considered a strengthen material or filler material and any wood-based additive or product that could be construed to aid in bonding would satisfy other wood products for adequate bonding.
The limitation requiring the panel containing the stiffener to remain straight and not warp, bend, twist, “or otherwise fail” is indefinite as it is unclear would satisfy or be considered an “otherwise fail”. For examination purposes, any panel that does not warp, bend, or twist will satisfy the claim.
Regarding claim 2,
The limitation requiring “conventional” lumber is indefinite. It is unclear what would constitute or satisfy “conventional” lumber. For examination purposes, any lumber used for building materials can be considered “conventional” lumber.
The limitation requiring “any other building materials” is indefinite as it is not clear what would satisfy or constitute “building materials” in the claimed sense. For examination purposes, any material capable of being implemented into a structural material could be considered a building material.
Regarding claim 3,
The limitation requiring the skin applied will “greatly increase the shear strength” is indefinite. The term “greatly increase” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “greatly increase” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes any skin material may be considered to greatly increase the shear strength compared to no skin material.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for the term “the top and bottom surfaces” as there is no previous recitation of “a top or a bottom surface” rendering the scope of the claims indefinite.
Regarding claim 4,
The phrase "any shape, like tongue and groove," renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The phrase “and many more applications” renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “many more”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sing et al. (US 2017/0157883 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
The limitations requiring the materials “can alternate and be adhered with an adhesive” and “can be cut length-wise or width-wise” are optional and thus not required to necessarily be present to satisfy claim 1. Thus, the subsequent limitations that further define the optional features are also optional, such as the limitations requiring an adhesive, cutting, sandwiching, and the orientation of the grains. Thus, claim 1 will be satisfied by a composite stiffened building material that comprises at least 2 layers of the claimed material layers.
Sing teaches a composite stiffened building material (comprising multiple layers of multiple materials such as those overlapping in claim 1 (Sing: abstract; par. 0016-0021).
Regarding claim 2,
Sing teaches the composite stiffened building material required by claim 1. The limitations requiring the materials “can be used in a variety of applications” and “can replace conventional lumber products” are optional or intended use of the claimed composite stiffener and thus not required to necessarily be present to satisfy claim 2. Thus, the subsequent limitations that further define the optional features are also optional. Thus, claim 2 will be satisfied by a composite stiffened building material that comprises at least 2 layers of the claimed material layers as required by claim 1.
However, Sing does teach it can be used to replace lumber products such as beams (Sing: par. 0016).
Regarding claim 3,
Sing teaches the composite stiffened building material required by claim 1. The limitations requiring the materials “can be sandwiched between at least two pieces of lumber, metal, plastic, fiberglass, HPL, MDF, or other flat sheet goods” are optional or intended use of the claimed composite stiffener and thus not required to necessarily be present to satisfy claim 3. Thus, the subsequent limitations that further define the optional features are also optional. Thus, claim 3 will be satisfied by a composite stiffened building material that comprises at least 2 layers of the claimed material layers as required by claim 1.
However, Sing does teach the composite building material can be placed into sandwich panels wherein the sandwich composite building materials can have exterior skins that may be adhered or bonded to the top and bottom sides (Sing: par. 0015 and 0016).
Regarding claim 4,
Sing teaches the composite stiffened building material required by claim 1. The limitations requiring the materials “can be profiled with any shape” are optional or intended use of the claimed composite stiffener and thus not required to necessarily be present to satisfy claim 4. Thus, the subsequent limitations that further define the optional features are also optional. Thus, claim 4 will be satisfied by a composite stiffened building material that comprises at least 2 layers of the claimed material layers as required by claim 1.
However, Sing does teach the composite stiffened building material is profiled into a shape as shown in Figures 2A-2C (Sing: Figs. 2A-2C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783