DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackburn (US 20210040738) in view of Ritter (US 6,272,805).
As to claim 1, Blackburn teaches a method for producing a wall panel comprising the steps of:
partially filling a form with uncured concrete ([0016]);
positioning a 3D wire mesh panel (18, 20, 22) onto the uncured concrete in the form ([0016], “laying…core body”);
allowing the panel to settle into the uncured concrete so there is uncured concrete below the panel such that the uncured concrete inherently bonds with the panel ([0016], “pressing”);
pouring additional uncured concrete onto the panel in the form to cover over the panel ([0016], “pouring additional concrete”);
letting the uncured concrete about the panel cure ([0016], “allowing the concrete to cure”); and
inherently separating the panel with the cured concrete about the panel from the form (Fig. 1 shows the panel no longer in form).
While Blackburn does not specifically teach that partially filled uncured concrete extends around all sides of the panel during the settling step, Blackburn does teach/suggest pressing the panel and that the panel is provided in a final configuration whereby concrete surrounds one or more edges of the unitary construct and completely covers an upper of the parallel plane grid mats ([0016]). In light of this teaching, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing that the pressing action would cause the concrete to form around all sides of the panel.
Blackburn is silent to a 3D wire mesh panel having a foam core with a 3D wire mesh matrix extending through and out the core.
Ritter teaches a 3D wire mesh panel (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) having a foam core (5:62) with a 3D wire mesh matrix extending through (Fig. 3, item 7) and out the core (Fig. 3, items 1, 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Ritter into Blackburn because (a) Blackburn teaches/suggests the process of Ritter ([0150], with the express teaching providing a reasonable expectation of success), or alternatively, (b) as an obvious improvement that would have the expected benefit/effect of reducing the amount of concrete and fixing the position of the reinforcement relative to the core.
As to claims 2-5, Blackburn inherently prepares the panel and form, including adding and clipping ([0165], last sentence) U-shaped mesh (Fig. 6, items 40 and 42) to an outer edge of the panel (Fig. 6, item 26).
As to claims 6-8, Blackburn teaches cutting a window opening ([0157], also Fig. 33) as recited and clipping (Fig. 36, boards extending across concrete) an inner border conforming to a window or door (Fig. 32, window inner border between workers) in the panel, and finishing the uncured concrete ([0030]).
As to claim 9, Blackburn already teaches vibrating the panel ([0183]) which settles the panel into the uncured concrete.
As to claims 11-12, Blackburn already teaches styrene foam (polystyrene, [0147]) which would inherently provide the claimed sound dampening and temperature insulation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackburn (US 20210040738) in view of Ritter (US 6,272,805), and further in view of DeCoster (US 4,206,163). Blackburn and Ritter teach the subject matter of claim 12 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 13, Blackburn uses a vibrating roller ([0187]) interpreted to be a screed. However, even in the case that this roller does not technically meet a screed, DeCoster specifically teaches screeding (4:51) to provide a smooth finish on the concrete. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the DeCoster screeding into Blackburn as an obvious alternative method for finishing a concrete panel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are addressed by the revised rejection above. The arguments point to the addition of claim 10 into independent claim 1, but it should also be noted that “foam” was not present in the previous version of claim 1 or claim 10. The revised rejection above relies on Ritter for a 3D wire mesh extending through and out of a foam core. Applicant’s arguments, especially page 6, express the view that in Blackburn “there is nowhere taught that anything extends into or through or out from the slab 24.” However, the Examiner notes that Blackburn expressly points to Ritter in [0150], and the Examiner interprets this to be a strong rationale pointing the ordinary artisan to reinforcements that meet those now claimed. Applicant argues that the claimed invention is much easier to work with and does not suffer from the problems of having to stabilize the slab relative to the welded grid body. It seems all of these benefits would be present in Ritter, and in light of the express reference to Ritter in Blackburn, the combination would have been obvious.
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 MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights