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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 11 May 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 and 14-20 are pending and subject to examination in this Office action. Claims 12 and 13 were canceled in the Notice of Allowance mailed on 11 February 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted to date are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the Examiner.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Droge (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0349148), in view of Khoshnevis (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0138678).
Regarding independent claim 1, Droge describes a load-bearing wall structure, comprising:
a first shell (Figs. 3 and 4) that comprises a first plurality of stacked elongated beads (36) of extruded material that forms a first wythe (38), the first shell forming a first surface of the load-bearing wall structure (Figs. 3 and 4);
a second shell (Figs. 3 and 4) spaced apart from the first shell, the second shell comprising a second plurality of stacked elongated beads (36) of extruded material that forms a second wythe (40), the second wythe forming a second surface of the load-bearing wall structure (Figs. 3 and 4); and
at least one U-shaped structural support (12) that comprises a first portion defining a first leg embedded in the first shell and a second portion defining a second leg coupled to the first leg, the second leg embedded in the second shell and the two second wythes, a middle portion spanning a core of the load-bearing wall structure between the first shell and the second shell, the first portion, the second portion, and the middle portion being substantially U-shaped (see e.g., Figs 1-4).
Droge does not appear to expressly describe that the second wythe is comprised of at least two wythes. As evidenced by Khoshnevis, it was old and well-known in the art to utilize a second wythe comprised of at least two wythes (i.e., three total wythes) oriented and positioned as claimed (see e.g., ¶ [0064]; Fig. 6a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a second wythe comprised of at least two wythes and a U-shaped structural support oriented and positioned therein as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have bolstered the structural integrity of the wall. Such combination of known prior art elements that merely yields predictable results would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16.
Accordingly, Droge as modified by Khoshnevis results in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, wherein a thickness of the first shell is a single bead width of the first plurality of stacked elongated beads (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Regarding claim 3, wherein a thickness of the second shell is a double bead width of the second plurality of stacked elongated beads (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Regarding claim 4, further comprising at least one core formed between the at least two second wythes of the second shell (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Regarding claim 5, further comprising at least one core formed between the at least two second wythes of the second shell and at least one structural rod positioned within the at least one core (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Regarding claim 6, further comprising at least one core formed between the at least two second wythes of the second shell and at least one structural rod positioned within the at least one core, the at least one structural rod comprising at least one tensioned coil rod (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Regarding claim 7, further comprising at least one core formed between the at least two second wythes of the second shell, wherein the at least one core comprises an enclosed volume with at least one side (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Regarding claim 8, further comprising at least one core formed between the at least two second wythes of the second shell, wherein the at least one core comprises an enclosed volume with at least one side, the at least one core being bounded by one of the at least two second wythes on one side and by another of the at least two second wythes on another side (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Regarding claim 9, further comprising at least one core formed between the at least two second wythes of the second shell and a portion of grout filling the at least one core (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the first portion is positioned between two or more adjacent stacked elongated beads of the first plurality of stacked elongated beads (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the first portion is positioned between two or more adjacent stacked elongated beads of the first plurality of stacked elongated beads, and the second portion is positioned between two or more adjacent, stacked elongated beads of the second plurality of stacked elongated beads of the second shell (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the at least one structural support comprises a first structural support, the exterior wall structure further comprising a second structural support (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the at least one structural support comprises a first structural support, the exterior wall structure further comprising a second structural support, and wherein a first portion of the second structural support is positioned substantially in one of the first wythe or the second wythe, and a second portion of the second structural support extends from the first portion across a space disposed between the first shell and the second shell (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the at least one structural support comprises a first structural support, the exterior wall structure further comprising a second structural support, and wherein a first portion of the second structural support is positioned substantially in one of the first wythe or the second wythe, and a second portion of the second structural support extends from the first portion across a space disposed between the first shell and the second shell, and wherein the first portion of the second structural support is wholly positioned between two or more adjacent stacked elongated beads of the first plurality of stacked elongated beads or between two adjacent stacked elongated beads of the second plurality of stacked elongated beads of one of the at least two second wythes (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the at least one structural support comprises a first structural support, the exterior wall structure further comprising a second structural support, and wherein a first portion of the second structural support is positioned substantially in one of the first wythe or the second wythe, and a second portion of the second structural support extends from the first portion across a space disposed between the first shell and the second shell, and wherein the first portion of the second structural support is wholly positioned between two or more adjacent stacked elongated beads of the first plurality of stacked elongated beads or between two adjacent stacked elongated beads of the second plurality of stacked elongated beads of one of the at least two second wythes, and wherein the second structural support comprises a T-shape (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Regarding claim 18, further comprising one or more top plates that is secured to at least one of the first plurality of stacked elongated beads of extruded building material and the second plurality of stacked elongated beads of extruded building material of each of the at least two second wythes (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Regarding claim 19, further comprising a thermal insulation material positioned between the first shell and the second shell (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Regarding claim 20, wherein the wall structure is an exterior wall structure (see e.g., Droge Figs 1-4; Khoshnevis Figs. 6a-7c).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Please be advised that a web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-11 and 14-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-21 of co-pending Application No. 18/204,298.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the structural elements recited in the rejected claims are present in the noted claims of the '298 application or they are obvious variants.
Claims 1-11 and 14-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/204,328.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the structural elements recited in the rejected claims are present in the noted claims of the '328 application or they are obvious variants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Refer to the attached Form PTO-892.
Authorization for Email Communication – In the event Applicant wishes to communicate with the Examiner via electronic mail, written authorization should be provided in Applicant’s next response. See MPEP § 502.03. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by Applicant:
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, we hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with any authorized representative concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. We understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY MINTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7327. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 0730 - 1630 EDT.
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 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.
/RODNEY MINTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights