DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/216,739. Receipt of the RCE, amendments, and arguments filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined.
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered.
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 2, 3, and 9 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. Claims 2 and 9 have been amended to define that “each of the layers of internal reinforcement strip” are to comprise of first and second mesh layers, a composite layer and first and second polymeric layers, when the originally filed specification at paragraph 58 discloses that the “one or more internal reinforcements may be comprised of several layers” where such “internal reinforcements may comprise a first polymeric layer . . a first mesh layer . . , a composite layer . . ., a second mesh layer . . . , and a second polymeric layer to fully encapsulate and form a sandwich of layers.” At no point does the originally filed specification teach that each and every one of the layers of the several layers is to comprise of such mesh, composite, and polymeric layers but instead the originally filed specification teaches that such a plurality of layers are to comprise of such mesh, composite, and polymeric layers, where each of such layers forms a layer of the plurality used to form such an internal reinforcement. Furthermore, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for depending upon claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zell et al. (U.S. Publication 2008/0038508) in view of Palmano (U.S. Publication 2021/0324636) and Spanovich et al. (U.S. Patent 11,060,304), or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Jannsen (EP 2845964).
Regarding claim 1, Zell et al. disclose a deck board assembly for assembling a deck board, comprising:
a plurality of deck board panels (#100) comprising a first deck board panel and a second deck board panel (any two panels #100 positioned adjacent one another in figure 3), the first deck board panel and the second deck board panel each comprising an extruded or pultruded panel body (paragraph 30 discloses the deck boards can be constructed through an extrusion process) and a chemically bonded use surface (the top surface #105 of each board can be considered the use surface, where the extrusion process integrally forms all components of the panels to one another such that the use surface can be considered chemically bonded thereto through the extrusion process), the extruded or pultruded panel body comprising an internal reinforcement strip (the horizontal segment at the bottom of groove #115 of figure 1 can be considered the internal reinforcement strip of material), and defining a side comprising an overhang (#140; see figure 1) and an opposite side comprising a ledge (the side #125 with groove #130 is considered to form the ledge);
a finishing feature (#145, #160, and/or #165); and
a plurality of mechanical fasteners (#135) comprising mechanical fasteners (#135) for use with the ledge and mechanical fasteners for use with the finishing feature (such fasteners #135 can be used for either the ledge (as depicted in figure 12b), or for the finishing feature, where such configured to language does not positively define the positioning or securement of such fasteners to a respective element), for assembling the deck board (see figure 12b),
wherein the internal reinforcement strip is parallel to the use surface and extends along a length of the extruded or pultruded panel body (see figures 1 and 2, where the internal reinforcement strip is horizontal and thus parallel to the top horizontal use surface and extends along the length of the body, which is parallel to longitudinal axis #116 of figure 2);
wherein the overhang is configured to engage with an adjacent deck board panel of the deck board (see figure 11a),
wherein the finishing feature is configured to engage the overhang (paragraph 32 and figure 10a disclose one of such finishing features #145/160/165 can be used to cover the end with the overhang in order to provide an aesthetic covering), and
wherein the finishing feature is configured to straddle at least the first deck board panel and the second deck board panel of the deck board (see figure 6, where the finishing features #145/160/165 are configured to cover the open ends of the panels and thus overlap adjacent panels attached to one another).
However, Zell et al. do not disclose an internal screw boss on the body of the panel as defined. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Palmano, that legs of a deck panel #2 can be constructed with a screw boss #32b in order to allow a trim panel to be screwed to the panel by inserting the screw through the trim and into the C-shaped boss. See figure 7A and paragraph 53. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the panels of Zell et al. to comprise of an internal screw boss, as taught in Palmano, in order to allow a trim panel finishing feature to attach to the decking panels without accidental removal therefrom, such as compared to when only a snap or compression fit is used to attach such elements to one another, as taught in Zell et al.
Paragraph 30 of Zell et al. disclose the boards #100 can be formed by an extrusion process and be constructed from a plastic material but does not specifically disclose the internal reinforcement strip comprises a layered strip comprising of layers of fibrous material encapsulated by a polymer. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Spanovich et al., that such plastic deck board panels can be pultruded using a fibrous reinforcement, such as fiberglass, carbon fiber or flax, that can be oriented in multiple directions using unidirectional rovings, continuous filament mat, or chopped fiber material, in a polymeric resin matrix, where the material comprises a multi-layers reinforcement (which is inferred by the use of unidirectional rovings and the ability to reinforce and orient the rovings in multiple directions) sandwiched and impregnated by layers of the resin to form the material. See col. 7, ll. 34-58. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the deck board panels of Zell et al., and thus the internal reinforcement integrally formed with the panel, out of a layered strip of material, such as a fiber reinforced resin layered structure as taught in Spanovich et al., in order to form a strong yet durable deck system and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Furthermore, as explained above, Applicant does not further differentiate or define the structure of the use surface compared to a regular, top walking surface of a deck panel and thus the top surface of the deck panel of Zell et al. can be considered such a use surface which is chemically bonded to the body since such elements are extruded and formed integrally as one. However, for compact prosecution purposes and if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Zell et al. as meeting such limitations, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Janssen, that such an upper, use surface #13 of a deck panel #1 can be co-extruded with the panel or applied in a two-stage extrusion on the panel using a different material than the panel to form a single, integral panel for use. See figure 1 and paragraph 38. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the upper, use surface of the panel of Zell et al. using a separate material that is chemically bonded thereto, such as through coextrusion as taught in Janssen, in order to form the upper use surface using different, decorative materials while maintaining the cost effectiveness and strength of the panel as needed.
Regarding claim 4, Zell et al. in view of Palmano and Spanovich et al., or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Jannsen, render obvious the chemically bonded use surface is processed or finished as imitation lineal deck boards or lineal slats (Zell et al. disclose the use of slot #115 within the upper use surface #105 in order to give the appearance of two adjacent lineal boards for such a use surface; see paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 5, Zell et al. in view of Palmano and Spanovich et al., or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Jannsen, render obvious the finishing feature is a rounded edge panel (Finishing features #145, #155, and #160 of Zell et al. can be considered to comprise of rounded edges to form a J or C-shaped end element. Alternatively, such a shape of the edge panel finishing feature is only ornamental and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the shape of the finishing features of Zell et al. to be rounded instead rectangular in order to construct an aesthetically pleasing edge based on the end user’s preferences. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947); MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 6, Zell et al. in view of Palmano and Spanovich et al., or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Jannsen, render obvious the rounded edge panel is configured to meet with the use surface of the first deck board panel and the second deck board panel of the deck board (The finishing features #145 and #160 of Zell et al. are configured to clamp the edges of the deck panels and thus are configured to meet with the top, use surface of adjacent deck panels at the juncture thereof, where such a positioning is not positively defined).
Regarding claim 7, Zell et al. in view of Palmano and Spanovich et al., or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Jannsen, render obvious the deck board assembly further comprises a plug (Zell et al.; #175) for an aperture (Zell et al.; #174) through the finishing feature (Zell et al. teach of use of such a plug for a fastener aperture of the deck panel when fastening the panel to a support structure and not for the finishing features. It would have similarly been obvious to apply such an aperture and plug to the finishing features of the assembly of Zell et al. in order to cover any screw holes through the finishing feature and provide an aesthetic outer surface for such finishing features and also since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).).
Regarding claim 8, Zell et al. disclose a deck board comprising:
a frame (#170); and
a deck board assembly, the deck board assembly comprising:
a plurality of modular deck board panels (#100) each comprising an extruded or pultruded panel body (paragraph 30 discloses the deck boards can be constructed through an extrusion process) and a chemically bonded use surface (the top surface #105 of each board can be considered the use surface, where the extrusion process integrally forms all components of the panels to one another such that the use surface can be considered chemically bonded thereto through the extrusion process), the extruded or pultruded panel body comprising an internal reinforcement strip (the horizontal segment at the bottom of groove #115 is considered the internal reinforcement strip of material) and defining a side comprising an overhang (#140; see figure 1) and an opposite side comprising a ledge (edge #125 with groove #130 comprises of a ledge);
a finishing feature (#145, #160, and/or #165); and
a plurality of mechanical fasteners (#135) comprising: mechanical fasteners (#135) fastening at least one of the plurality of modular deck board panels, via the ledge, to the frame (see figures 10b, #12a, and 12c); and
wherein the internal reinforcement is parallel to the use surface and extends along a length of the extruded or pultruded panel body (see figures 1 and 2, where the internal reinforcement strip is horizontal and thus parallel to the top horizontal use surface and extends along the length of the body, which is parallel to longitudinal axis #116 of figure 2);
wherein the finishing feature is positioned along the extruded or pultruded panel body of at least one of the plurality of modular deck board panels (see figure 6, where the finishing features #145/160/165 are configured to cover the open ends of the panels and thus overlap adjacent panels attached to one another).
However, Zell et al. do not disclose an internal screw boss on the body of the panel so as to mechanically fasten the finishing feature to the panel body through a mechanical fastener as defined. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Palmano, that legs of a deck panel #2 can be constructed with a screw boss #32b in order to allow a trim panel to be screwed to the panel by inserting the screw through the trim and into the C-shaped boss. See figure 7A and paragraph 53. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the panels of Zell et al. to comprise of an internal screw boss and mechanically fasten the finishing feature trim to the panels, as taught in Palmano, in order to allow a trim panel finishing feature to attach to the decking panels without accidental removal therefrom, such as compared to when only a snap or compression fit is used to attach such elements to one another as taught in Zell et al.
Paragraph 30 of Zell et al. disclose the boards #100 can be formed by an extrusion process and be constructed from a plastic material but does not specifically disclose the internal reinforcement comprises a layered strip. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Spanovich et al., that such plastic deck board panels can be pultruded using a fibrous reinforcement, such as fiberglass, carbon fiber or flax, that can be oriented in multiple directions by using unidirectional rovings, continuous filament mat, or chopped fiber material, in a polymeric resin matrix, where the material comprises layers of reinforcement (which is inferred by the use of unidirectional rovings and the ability to reinforce and orient the rovings in multiple directions) sandwiched and impregnated by layers of the resin to form the material. See col. 7, ll. 34-58. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the deck board panels of Zell et al., and thus the internal reinforcement integrally formed with the panel, out of a layered strip of material, such as a fiber reinforced resin layered structure as taught in Spanovich et al., in order to form a strong yet durable deck system and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Furthermore, as explained above, Applicant does not further differentiate or define the structure of the use surface compared to a regular, top walking surface of a deck panel and thus the top surface of the deck panel of Zell et al. can be considered such a use surface which is chemically bonded to the body since such elements are extruded and formed integrally as one. However, for compact prosecution purposes and if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Zell et al. as meeting such limitations, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Janssen, that such an upper, use surface #13 of a deck panel #1 can be co-extruded with the panel or applied in a two-stage extrusion on the panel using a different material than the panel to form a single, integral panel for use. See figure 1 and paragraph 38. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the upper, use surface of the panel of Zell et al. using a separate material that is chemically bonded thereto, such as through coextrusion as taught in Janssen, in order to form the upper use surface using different, decorative materials while maintaining the cost effectiveness and strength of the panel as needed.
Regarding claim 10, Zell et al. in view of Palmano and Spanovich et al., or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Jannsen, render obvious the chemically bonded use surface is processed or finished as imitation lineal deck boards or lineal slats (Zell et al. disclose the use of slot #115 within the upper, use surface #105 in order to give the appearance of two adjacent lineal boards; see paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 11, Zell et al. in view of Palmano and Spanovich et al., or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Jannsen, render obvious the finishing feature is a rounded edge panel (Finishing features #145, #155, and #160 of Zell et al. can be considered to comprise of rounded edges to form a J or C-shaped end element. Alternatively, such a shape of the edge panel finishing feature is only ornamental and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the shape of the finishing features of Zell et al. to be rounded instead in order to construct an aesthetically pleasing edge based on the end user’s preferences. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947); MPEP 2144.04.).
Regarding claim 12, Zell et al. in view of Palmano and Spanovich et al., or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Jannsen, render obvious the rounded edge panel is configured to meet with the use surface of at least one of the plurality of modular deck board panels (The finishing features #145 and #160 of Zell et al. are configured to clamp the edges of the deck panels and thus are configured to meet with the top use surface of adjacent deck panels at the juncture thereof, where such a positioning is not positively defined).
Regarding claim 13, Zell et al. in view of Palmano and Spanovich et al., or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Jannsen, render obvious the finishing feature is configured to engage with the overhang, and wherein the finishing feature is positioned along the overhang of the extruded or pultruded panel body of at least one of the plurality of modular deck board panels (Paragraph 32 and figure 10a of Zell et al. disclose the end #125 with overhang #140 is to inserted within finishing feature #145, where sawing off such an overhang #140 is optional).
Regarding claim 14, Zell et al. in view of Palmano and Spanovich et al., or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Jannsen, render obvious the deck board assembly further comprises a plug (Zell et al.; #175) for an aperture (Zell et al.; #174) through the finishing feature (Zell et al. teach of use of such a plug for a fastener aperture of the deck panel when fastening the panel to a support structure and not specifically for the finishing feature elements. It would have similarly been obvious to apply such an aperture and plug to the finishing features of the assembly of Zell et al. in order to cover any screw holes through the finishing feature and provide an aesthetic outer surface for such finishing features and also since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).).
Regarding claim 15, Zell et al. disclose a method of assembling a deck board, comprising:
providing a frame (#170);
providing a deck board assembly, the deck board assembly comprising:
a plurality of modular deck board panels (#100) each comprising an extruded or pultruded panel body (paragraph 30 discloses the deck boards can be constructed through an extrusion process) and a chemically bonded use surface (the top surface #105 of each board can be considered the use surface, where the extrusion process integrally forms all components of the panels to one another such that the use surface can be considered chemically bonded thereto through the extrusion process), the extruded or pultruded panel body comprising an internal reinforcement strip (the horizontal segment at the bottom of the groove #115 is considered the internal reinforcement strip of material) and defining a side comprising an overhang (#140; see figure 1) configured to engage with an adjacent deck board panel (see figure 11a), and an opposite side comprising a ledge (edge #125 with groove #130 comprises of a ledge), wherein the internal reinforcement is parallel to the use surface and extends along a length of the extruded or pultruded panel body (see figures 1 and 2, where the internal reinforcement strip is horizontal and thus parallel to the top horizontal use surface and extends along the length of the body, which is parallel to longitudinal axis #116 of figure 2);
a finishing feature (#145, #160, and/or #165); and
a plurality of mechanical fasteners (#135) for assembling the deck board;
fastening at least one of the plurality of modular deck board panels, via the ledge, to the frame with a mechanical fastener of the plurality of mechanical fasteners (see figures 10b, #12a, and 12c); and
positioning the finishing feature along the extruded or pultruded panel body of at least one of the plurality of modular deck board panels (see figure 6, where the finishing features #145/160/165 are provided to cover the open ends of the panels and thus overlap adjacent panels attached to one another).
However, Zell et al. do not disclose an internal screw boss on the body of the panel so as to mechanically fasten the finishing feature to the panel body through a mechanical fastener as defined. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Palmano, that legs of a deck panel #2 can be constructed with a screw boss #32b in order to allow a trim panel to be screwed to the panel by inserting the screw through the trim and into the C-shaped boss. See figure 7A and paragraph 53. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the panels of Zell et al. to comprise of an internal screw boss and mechanically fasten the finishing feature trim to the panels, as taught in Palmano, in order to allow a trim panel finishing feature to attach to the decking panels without accidental removal therefrom, such as compared to when only a snap or compression fit is used to attach such elements to one another as taught in Zell et al.
Paragraph 30 of Zell et al. disclose the boards #100 can be formed by an extrusion process and be constructed from a plastic material but does not specifically disclose the internal reinforcement comprises a layered strip. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Spanovich et al., that such plastic deck board panels can be pultruded using a fibrous reinforcement, such as fiberglass, carbon fiber or flax, that can be oriented in multiple directions using unidirectional rovings, continuous filament mat, or chopped fiber material, in a polymeric resin matrix, where the material comprises layers of reinforcement (which is inferred by the use of unidirectional rovings and the ability to reinforce and orient the rovings in multiple directions) sandwiched and impregnated by layers of the resin to form the material. See col. 7, ll. 34-58. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the deck board panels of Zell et al., and thus the internal reinforcement integrally formed with the panel, out of a layered strip of material, such as a fiber reinforced resin layered structure as taught in Spanovich et al., in order to form a strong yet durable deck system and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Furthermore, as explained above, Applicant does not further differentiate or define the structure of the use surface compared to a regular, top walking surface of a deck panel and thus the top surface of the deck panel of Zell et al. can be considered such a use surface which is chemically bonded to the body since such elements are extruded and formed integrally as one. However, for compact prosecution purposes and if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Zell et al. as meeting such limitations, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Janssen, that such an upper, use surface #13 of a deck panel #1 can be co-extruded with the panel or applied in a two-stage extrusion on the panel using a different material than the panel to form a single, integral panel for use. See figure 1 and paragraph 38. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the upper, use surface of the panel of Zell et al. using a separate material that is chemically bonded thereto, such as through coextrusion as taught in Janssen, in order to form the upper use surface using different, decorative materials while maintaining the cost effectiveness and strength of the panel as needed.
Regarding claim 16, Zell et al. in view of Palmano and Spanovich et al., or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Jannsen, render obvious the fibrous material of the internal reinforcement strip is glass fibers, or carbon fibers, or bast fibers to increase rigidity (col. 7, ll. 34-58 of Spanovich et al. disclose the obviousness of using fiberglass or carbon fibers for such reinforcements, where such features would be provided within Zell et al. as explained above).
Regarding claim 17, Zell et al. in view of Palmano and Spanovich et al., or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Jannsen, render obvious the finishing feature is a rounded edge panel (Finishing features #145, #155, and #160 of Zell et al. can be considered to comprise of rounded edges to form a J or C-shaped end element. Alternatively, such a shape of the edge panel finishing feature is only ornamental and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the shape of the finishing features of Zell et al. to be rounded instead in order to construct an aesthetically pleasing edge based on the end user’s preferences. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947); MPEP 2144.04.).
Regarding claim 18, Zell et al. in view of Palmano and Spanovich et al., or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Jannsen, render obvious the rounded edge panel is configured to meet with the use surface of at least one of the plurality of modular deck board panels (The finishing features #145 and #160 of Zell et al. are configured to clamp the edges of the deck panels and thus are configured to meet with the top use surface of adjacent deck panels at the juncture thereof, where such a positioning is not positively defined).
Regarding claim 19, Zell et al. in view of Palmano and Spanovich et al., or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Jannsen, render obvious positioning the finishing feature along the extruded or pultruded panel body further comprises positioning the finishing feature along the overhang of the extruded or pultruded panel body (Paragraph 32 and figure 10a of Zell et al. disclose the end #125 with overhang #140 is to inserted within finishing feature #145, where sawing off such an overhang #140 is optional).
Regarding claim 20, Zell et al. in view of Palmano and Spanovich et al., or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Jannsen, render obvious plugging an aperture through the finishing feature with a plug component of the deck board assembly (Zell et al. teach of use of such a plug #175 for a fastener aperture #174 of the deck panel when fastening the panel to a support structure and not specifically for the finishing feature. It would have similarly been obvious to apply such an aperture and plug to the finishing features of the assembly of Zell et al. in order to cover any screw holes through the finishing feature and provide an aesthetic outer surface for such finishing features and also since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).).
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zell et al. in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al. and Bedford (Bedford, Molded vs. Pultruded Fiberglass Grating, Sept, 28th, 2022, obtained from https://web.archive.org/web/20220928022259/https://bedfordreinforced.com/molded-versus-pultruded-grating/), or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., Bedford, and Jannsen.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, for compact prosecution purposes, the claims are examined as is understood based on the originally filed specification. Zell et al. in view of Palmano and Spanovich et al., or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Jannsen, render obvious the claimed invention except specifically for the layers of the internal reinforcement strip comprise a first polymeric layer, a first mesh layer, a composite layer of fibrous material, a second mesh layer, and a second polymeric layer to encapsulate the composite layer. Col. 7, ll. 34-58 of Spanovich et al. disclose chopped/shredded fiber reinforcements can be sandwiched and impregnated between two layers of polymeric material. Though Spanovich et al. does not specifically disclose the use of such mesh layers on either side of the composite layer, such mesh layers are commonly used in the FRP pultrusion process. Bedford teaches that after impregnating a composite layer of fiberglass reinforcement comprising of unidirectional rovings, a lightweight polyester fabric/mesh, or surface veil, is provided over the composite layer in order to provide a smooth, more durable surface in the final product, where a polymeric resin sandwiches the outer surfaces of the surface veil on either side of the product. See Step 3 and the second figure. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the internal reinforcement strip, as well as the rest of the body of the panel, of Zell et al. to comprise of a sandwich configuration comprising of first and second polymer layers that encapsulate first and second mesh layers/surface veils, and a composite layer of fibrous material, as taught in Spanovich et al. and Bedford, in order to form such a strip using common pultrusion methods which provides the end product with a smooth, more durable resin-rich surface that enhances the product’s environmental and chemical resistance of the product.
Regarding claim 3, Zell et al. in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., and Bedford, or in the alternative in view of Palmano, Spanovich et al., Bedford, and Jannsen, render obvious the fibrous material of the composite layer is glass fibers, or carbon fibers or bast fibers or any combination thereof (col. 7, ll. 34-58 of Spanovich et al. disclose the obviousness of using fiberglass or carbon fibers for such reinforcements and Bedford similarly discloses use of fiberglass for the composite layer fibers, where such features would be provided within Zell et al. as explained above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the fibrous reinforcements of Spanovich et al. cured into the structural member of the panel body of Zell et al. “is not the same or equivalent (in structure of function) to ‘an extruded or pultruded panel body . . . comprising an internal screw boss and an internal reinforcement’” as defined in claim 1, Applicant does not further define such a structure or function of the internal reinforcement strip of the claimed panel body other than that it comprises layers of fibrous material encapsulated by a polymer and is parallel to the use surface and extends along the length of the panel body. Furthermore, Applicant does not define that such a reinforcement strip is a separate piece that is not integrally formed in the panel body of the assembly. The horizontal segment at the bottom of groove #115 of figure 1 of Zell et al. can be considered the internal reinforcement strip of material since it is internally placed relative to the top and bottom surfaces of the panel body and is a reinforcement strip of material used to reinforce the groove and central portion of the panel body, where such a strip extends in the length direction of the panel, as depicted in figure 2, and is horizontal and thus parallel to the top horizontal use surface of the panel body. Furthermore, Spanovich et al. teach in col. 7, ll. 34-58 that such plastic deck board panels can be pultruded using a fibrous reinforcement, such as fiberglass, carbon fiber or flax, that can be oriented in multiple directions by using unidirectional rovings, continuous filament mat, or chopped fiber material, in a polymeric resin matrix, where the material comprises layers of reinforcement (which is inferred by the use of unidirectional rovings and multiple layers of unidirectional rovings provided so as to provide reinforcement in the different directions) sandwiched and impregnated by layers of the resin to form the material. Thus, combining the structure of Zell et al. with the material and manufacturing method of Spanovich et al. renders such features obvious of claim 1. The rejections are considered proper and are upheld.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 at (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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635