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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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 1-6 and 11 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miko (4,662,141) in view of GIP GMBH (EP3683379) and Jakel (5,465,547).
1. Miko teaches a tile for a roof or wall (roofing element 3 could be used on a wall by nailing battens 2 to wall sheathing instead of roof deck 1), the tile comprising:
a plate (the main body of the tile) including a front (exposed) and a back (unexposed) side;
an upper bar shaped reaction bearing (suspension ledge 7) arranged at the back side of the plate and extending over a width of the plate (suspension ledge 7 extends into the plane of the page, so ledge 7 extends over at least a partial plate width),
wherein the upper bar shaped reaction bearing includes a flat support surface (the suspension ledge support surface is where the batten outer corner contacts the proximal portion of the suspension ledge 7),
wherein the support surface extends to the back side of the plate (the support surface as defined extends to the back side of the plate in that the support surface must extend from the back side to some degree or it would not support the tile), and
wherein the flat support surface is configured to contact a rectangular cross lath 2 of a lathing of the roof or wall, the lath having flat surfaces.
Miko does not expressly teach the plate being rectangular, or the upper bar shaped reaction bearing includes the support surface inclined at an angle A of 3° to 20° relative to a line oriented orthogonal to the plate front side, wherein a contact surface adjoins the support surface at an angle B of 90° so that the support surface and the contact surface are configured to contact a rectangular cross lath of a lathing of the roof or wall.
GIP GMBH teaches a plate being rectangular, figs. 4-5, and an upper bar shaped reaction bearing includes a support surface 46, wherein the support surface contacts a cross lath 10 of a lathing of a wall, para. 46, fig. 4, and Jakel, fig. 12, col. 7, lines 8-15, annotated fig. 12 below, teaches an angled contact surface 162 contacting a roof 160.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the plate to be rectangular for ease of installation, and to modify the Miko support surface (as taught by GIP GMBH) so that there is full contact between the support surface and the furring top surface, and to modify the Miko plate back surface (as taught by Jakel by angling) to allow full contact between a modified angled Miko contact surface and the furring major face (just like Jakel surface 162 contacts the roof 160 to angle the tile relative to the roof) for a tighter fit between the Miko cladding and the Miko standard rectangular furring, the Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel upper bar shaped reaction bearing including a support surface inclined at an angle A of 3° to 20° relative to a line oriented orthogonal to a plane of the rectangular plate (the support surface is inclined at an angle a of 5° to 20° (the claimed range is within the Jakel range) relative to a line oriented orthogonal to a plane of the rectangular plate, col. 2, lines 34-36, therefore the Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel upper bar shaped reaction bearing support surface is inclined at an angle a of 3° to 20° relative to a line oriented orthogonal to a plane of the plate, as the furring is rectangular (Examiner remarks that Jakel teaches the fig. 1 embodiment has the 5° to 20° angle range, col. 2, lines 34-36, but does not expressly teach this for the fig. 12 embodiment; however, the angle of both embodiments appears to generally be the same, and the use for the two tile embodiments is identical), wherein the contact surface adjoins the support surface at an angle of 90° so that the support surface and the contact surface are configured to contact a rectangular cross lath of a lathing of the roof or façade cladding (the support and contact surfaces are at 90 degrees because the Miko lath is rectangular and the modification of the Miko support and contact surfaces is to have face to face contact with the furring).
Finally, as seen in the annotated fig below, the Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel tile teaches flat contact and support surfaces contacting the corresponding flat Miko lath surfaces.
PNG
media_image1.png
171
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 12 (Jakel)
PNG
media_image2.png
229
611
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Miko fig. 1 annotated to show the GIP angled contact surface and Jakel support surface
2. Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel teaches the tile according to claim 1, Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel further teaches the angle A is 10° to 15° because the angle is 5° to 20° (which encompasses the claimed 10° to 15° range) as indicated above.
3. Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel teaches the tile according to claim 2, Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel further teaches the angle A is 12° to 14° because the angle is 5° to 20° (which encompasses the claimed 12° to 14° range) as indicated above.
4. Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel does not expressly teach the support surface has a width of at least 15 mm. It would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the support surface to have a width of at least 15 mm because providing a wide support surface is well known in the art (a 15 mm wide support surface would cover about half the top surface of a standard 1” (25mm) thick wood furring).
5. Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel does not expressly teach the contact surface has a width of at least 30 mm. It would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the contact surface to have a width of at least 30 mm because providing a wide contact surface is well known in the art (a 30 mm wide support surface would cover about half the front surface of a standard 3” (45mm) thick wood furring).
6. Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel teaches the cladding element according to claim 1, Jakel, fig. 12, further comprising a hole 110, col. 3, lines 15-16, oriented orthogonal to the plane of the rectangular plate (fig. 12 shows the hole orthogonal) and configured to receive nails 166. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Miko to have a hole oriented orthogonal to the plane of the rectangular plate to configured to receive nails to resist wind uplift forces.
11. Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel teaches the cladding element according to claim 1, Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel further comprising the flat contact surface is oriented parallel to the roof and/or wall and the flat support surface is oriented perpendicular to the roof and/or wall, annotated fig. below.
Claims 8-10 and 12 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miko in view of GIP GMBH, Jakel, and Fifield (7,003,922).
8. Miko teaches a tile for a roof or wall (roofing element 3 could be used on a wall by nailing battens 2 to wall sheathing instead of roof deck 1), the tile comprising a plate (the main body of the element) and an upper bar shaped reaction bearing (suspension ledge 7) arranged at a backside of the plate, wherein the upper bar shaped reaction bearing includes a support surface extending to the backside of the plate (the suspension ledge support surface is where the batten outer corner contacts the proximal portion of the suspension ledge 7), the support surface contacting a rectangular cross lath 2.
Miko does not teach 1) the plate is rectangular, 2) a recess at an upper end of a front side of the plate and extending over a width of the plate and configured to receive a lower end of another tile above the tile in the roof or wall, wherein a depth of the recess orthogonal to a plane of the rectangular plate is smaller than a thickness of the plate, and 3) the upper bar shaped reaction bearing includes the support surface inclined at an angle of 3° to 20° relative to a line oriented orthogonal to a plane of the rectangular plate, wherein a contact surface adjoins the support surface at an angle B of 90° so that the support surface and the contact surface are configured to contact a rectangular cross lath of a lathing of the roof or wall.
GIP GMBH teaches a plate being rectangular, figs. 4-5, and an upper bar shaped reaction bearing includes a support surface 46, wherein the support surface contacts a cross lath 10 of a lathing of the a wall, para. 46, fig. 4, and Jakel, fig. 12, col. 7, lines 8-15, teaches an angled contact surface 162 contacting a roof 160. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the plate to be rectangular for ease of installation, and to modify the Miko support surface (as taught by GIP GMBH) so that there is full contact between the support surface and the furring top surface, and to modify the Miko plate back surface (as taught by Jakel by angling) to allow full contact between a modified angled Miko contact surface and the furring major face (just like Jakel surface 162 contacts the roof 160 to angle the tile relative to the roof) for a tighter fit between the Miko cladding and the Miko standard rectangular furring, the Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel upper bar shaped reaction bearing including a support surface inclined at an angle A of 3° to 20° relative to a line oriented orthogonal to a plane of the rectangular plate (the support surface is inclined at an angle A of 5° to 20° (which is in the claimed range) relative to a line oriented orthogonal to a plane of the rectangular plate, col. 2, lines 34-36, therefore the Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel upper bar shaped reaction bearing support surface is inclined at an angle a of 3° to 20° relative to a line oriented orthogonal to a plane of the plate, as the furring is rectangular (Examiner remarks that Jakel teaches the fig. 1 embodiment has the 5° to 20° angle range, col. 2, lines 34-36, but does not expressly teach this for the fig. 12 embodiment; however, the angle of both embodiments appears to generally be the same, and the use for the two tile embodiments is identical), wherein the contact surface adjoins the support surface at an angle of 90° so that the support surface and the contact surface are configured to contact a rectangular cross lath of a lathing of the roof or wall (the support and contact surfaces are at 90 degrees because the Miko lath is rectangular and the modification of the Miko support and contact surfaces is to have face to face contact with the furring surfaces.
Fifield teaches a tile comprising a recess 28 arranged at an upper end 16 of a front side 12 of a rectangular plate and extending over a width of the plate and configured to receive a lower end of another tile above the tile in the roof or wall, wherein a depth of the recess orthogonal to a plane of the rectangular plate is smaller than a thickness of the plate, figs. 1 and 5, col. 7, lines 5-15 (the figures show the recess depth smaller than the plate thickness). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Miko to have an upper end recess (by putting an elongated recess on the Miko tile front at the top) that receives a lower end of a second cladding to help lock together the top and bottom claddings at their respective ends.
Finally, as seen in the annotated fig below, the Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel tile teaches flat contact and support surfaces contacting the corresponding flat Miko lath surfaces
9. Miko in view of GIP GMBH, Jakel, and Fifield teaches the tile according to claim 8, the references further teaching angle A is between 40 and 60 (the angle is 5° to 20°, 5° and 6° being in the 5° to 20°)
10. The support surface is not expressly taught as having a width of at least 15 mm and the contact surface having a width of at least 30 mm. It would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the support surface to have a width of at least 15 mm because providing a wide support surface is well known in the art (a 15 mm wide support surface would cover about half the top surface of a standard 1” (25mm) thick wood furring) and it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the contact surface to have a width of at least 30 mm because providing a wide contact surface is well known in the art (a 30 mm wide support surface would cover about half the front surface of a standard 3” (45mm) thick wood furring).
17. Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel teaches the cladding element according to claim 8, Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel further comprising the flat contact surface is oriented parallel to the roof and/or wall and the flat support surface is oriented perpendicular to the roof and/or wall, annotated fig. below.
Claim 7 - is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel and in further view of Baker (4,914,885).
7. Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel teaches the tile according to claim 1, Miko further comprising a lower reaction bearing 4 at an inside of the tile, but Miko does not teach a reinforcement rib arranged between the upper bar shaped reaction bearing and the lower reaction bearing, wherein a height of the reinforcement rib orthogonal to the plane of the rectangular plate is equal to a height of the upper bar shaped reaction bearing and the lower reaction bearing. Baker teaches a reinforcement rib (rib) arranged between an upper (top) and lower (bottom) reaction bearings, wherein a height of the reinforcement rib orthogonal to the plane of the rectangular plate is generally equal to a height of the upper bar shaped reaction bearing and the lower reaction bearing (see Examiner’s annotated dashed line below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Miko to have a reinforcement rib arranged between the upper bar shaped reaction bearing and the lower reaction bearing, wherein a height of the reinforcement rib orthogonal to the plane of the rectangular plate is equal to a height of the upper bar shaped reaction bearing and the lower reaction bearing for tile body strength, a rib of the claimed height providing enhanced cladding element crack resistance.
PNG
media_image3.png
308
648
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 9 (Baker)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
“In Miko the backside of the tile 2 contacts a corner of the cross lath 2, but does not contact two flat surfaces of the cross lath 2”
The argument is not persuasive because the Miko tile backside contacting a corner of lath 2 not the two flat lath surfaces is the reason why it is beneficial to modify Miko to include such flat surfaces.
“In GIP GMBH the tile 40 contacts one flat surface of the cross lath 10 with the support surface 46 but does not contact another flat surface of the cross lath 10. GIP GMBH explicitly teaches away from a contact of the face 41 with the cross lath 10 by introducing a protruding nose 21 in the cross lath surface in order to prevent drilling debris from getting stuck between tile face 41 and the cross lath 10 which might cause the tile 40 to crack
The sole purpose of GIP GMBH lath nose 21 is to prevent drilling debris from getting stuck between tile face 41 and the cross lath 10 which might cause the tile to crack. There is no concern for drilling-generated chips because Miko does not even disclose fastening the tiles, and even if it did, lath 2 is wooden, not metal. In other words, Miko benefits from the GIP full contact support surface without any concern for accumulated chips.
“The Office action cites the beveled or tapered underside surface 162 of Jakel as contact surface. However, as evident from Jakel FiG. 12 (enclosed with markup), the surface 162 of Jakel is not in contact with a rectangular cross lath, but merely contacts the roof itself”
Tapered underside surface 162 is indeed a roof contact surface. As such it is clearly analogous to a lath surface. They are both the substrate surface that contacts the tile underside. Importantly, it is the primary reference, Miko, that teaches the claimed lath, not Jakel.
“As stated supra GIP paragraphs [0028] and [0044] - [0047] teaches away from two flat contact surfaces between tile and cross lath and thus from a statically overdetermined structure created by combining the rectangular cross lath of Miko with the tile of GIP created by the combination of the teachings on Miko, GIP and Jakel shown on page 6 of the Office Action”
While GIP teaches away from two flat contact surfaces between tile and cross lath, it is not because this might statically overdetermine the structure. The sole reason GIP discloses for having a gap between the tile back face and lath exposed face is that metal chips could accumulate without the gap, thus the tile rear side “cannot bear directly on the chips” which can cause tile breakage. GIP only teaches away from two flat contact surfaces between tile and cross lath when the tile rear side that potentially contacts the lath front face accumulates chips. In fact, but for a tile rear side bearing “directly on the metal chips”, GIP would appear to otherwise function beneficially from a more stable structure in which the tile rear side bears directly on the lath front face. This is the case with the tile of Miko in view of GIP GMBH and Jakel. And finally, in any case, a structure can be statically overdetermined (indeterminate) but still be stable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
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 Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633