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 .
PRODUCT BY PROCESS CLAIM:
“ The subject matter present is regarded as a product by process claim in which a product is introduced by the method in which it is made. It is the general practice of this office to examine the final product described regardless of the method provided by the applicant.”
“ the newly added limitations of “ prefabricated”, “ preformed” in claims 16, 21-22 appears to be product by process limitations and are thus treated accordingly to the office policy set forth above.
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) 16, 21-22 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barr in view of Chenier et al (8584416).
Per claim 16, Barr shows a drywall board system for forming a reveal, comprising: a prefabricated(see product by process policy above) drywall board (32, 24, 25, 26 right) for securing directly to framing members(20), the drywall board having a) a back side(25) designed to be adjacent to the framing members(20) when the drywall board is secured thereto, and b) a front side opposite the back side; framing drywall liner( 25) on the back side; finishing drywall liner(34) on the front side, gypsum material(32) sandwiched between the framing and finishing drywall liners finishing drywall liner(34) on the front side; a backing(figures 3-6 shows variations) fastened to the back side of the drywall board, the backing not contacting the front side of the drywall board,; and a baseboard (32 left) secured to and overlapping the backing, such that a gap remains between the top of the baseboard and the bottom of the drywall board, the gap revealing the backing.
Barr does not show the backing extends downward from a bottom of the drywall board in a vertical direction toward a floor, the baseboard extending upward from the floor.
Chenier et al figures 3-4, show the backing extends downward from a bottom of the drywall board in a vertical direction toward a floor, the baseboard extending upward from the floor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barr’s structures to show the backing extends downward from a bottom of the drywall board in a vertical direction toward a floor, the baseboard extending upward from the floor as taught by Chenier et al with a reasonable expectation of success in order to form a control joint between vertical panel members.
Per claim 21, Barr (figures 1-6) as modified shows a drywall board system for forming a reveal, comprising: a prefabricated(see product by process policy above) drywall board(32, 34, 24, 26, 25) for securing directly to framing members(20), the drywall board having a) a back side designed to be adjacent to the framing members when the drywall board is secured thereto, and b) a front side opposite the back side; framing drywall liner(25) on the back side; finishing drywall liner(34) on the front side; gypsum material(32) sandwiched between the framing and finishing drywall liners; a baseboard (32) having a preformed (see product by process policy above) horizontal groove (where rib 66 goes into) therein; and a combination reveal and baseboard locator(66) attached to the drywall board, wherein the combination reveal and baseboard locator includes a reveal portion and a rib(66) that projects horizontally from the reveal portion and is dimensioned to fit into the preformed (see product by process policy above) horizontal groove in the baseboard and thereby align the reveal portion and the baseboard.
Per claim 22, Barr as modified further shows the reveal portion of the combination reveal and baseboard locator is straight and attaches to the framing drywall liner on the back side of the drywall board.
Claim(s) 16 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haag et al (2867013) in view of Loreggia et al (8511591).
Haag et al shows figures 1-3, shows a drywall board system for forming a reveal, comprising: a prefabricated (see product by process policy above) drywall board (14) for directly securing to framing members(13; figure 3 shows part 14 directly attached thereon), the drywall board having a) a back side (figure 3) designed to be adjacent to the framing members(13) when the drywall board is secured thereto, and b) a front side(where it attaches to part 15) opposite the back side; finishing drywall liner(15) on the front side; a backing(10) fastened to the back side of the drywall board, in a vertical direction toward a floor (figure 3) such that the backing extends downward from a bottom of the drywall board without contacting the front side of the drywall board; and a baseboard (12) extending upward from the floor (11), the baseboard secured to and overlapping the backing, such that a gap remains between the top of the baseboard and the bottom of the drywall board, the gap revealing the backing.
Haag et al does not show framing drywall liner on the back side; gypsum material sandwiched between the framing and finishing drywall liners.
Loreggia et al discloses framing drywall liner(14) on the back side; finishing drywall liner(15) on the front side, gypsum material(16) sandwiched between the framing and finishing drywall liners.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Haag et al’s structures to show framing drywall liner(14) on the back side; finishing drywall liner(15) on the front side, gypsum material(16) sandwiched between the framing and finishing drywall liners as taught by Loreggia et al with a reasonable expectation of success in order to mount gypsum drywall panels with liners providing insulation for the interior of the wall.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 13 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haag et al (2867013).
Haag et al shows a drywall(vertically from top to bottom) installed with a reveal that extends from a floor and that is supported by studs, a drywall board(15) having a back side, a front side and a bottom; securing a backing(26) to the back side of the drywall board so that the backing extends past the bottom of the drywall board; affixing the drywall board to the studs(13) in an orientation in which the bottom of the board is the bottommost part of the drywall board(vertically); and affixing a baseboard(12) below the drywall board and proximal to the floor such that the baseboard overlaps or abuts the backing, leaving a gap between a top of the baseboard and the bottom of the drywall board to thereby create a reveal that exposes the backing, the backing secured to the back side of the drywall board so that the backing extends past the bottom of the drywall board without contacting the front side of the drywall board.
Haag shows all the claimed structures. The claimed method steps would have been the obvious method steps of installing a drywall with Haag et al’s structures.
Claim(s) 4, 8 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haag et al (2867013) in view of Gomez (2007/0094998).
Haag does not show fastening the backing to the back side of the drywall board with adhesive.
Gomez figures 1c-1d, discloses the well-known use of either adhesive or (nail/screws) to attach a connecting member to its substrate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Haag et al’s structures to show the backing being attached to the back side of the board with adhesive with a reasonable expectation of success since using either nail/screws or adhesive to attach connecting member to its substate would provide the same function of connecting structures together as taught by Gomez and one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute adhesive for screws/nails in connecting structures together.
Haag as modified shows all the claimed structures. The claimed method steps would have been the obvious method steps of installing a drywall with Haag et al modified’s structures.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haag(3192577).
Haag shows an installation of drywall to create a reveal in a wall that extends from a floor (11), provide a prefabricated drywall board (14, 15), providing a baseboard (12) extending upward rom the floor (11), the baseboard including a preformed horizontal groove (figure 3, where 31 goes into), a combination reveal and baseboard locator, the combination reveal and baseboard locator includes a reveal portion (30) and a rib (31) that projects horizontally from the reveal portion, attach the reveal portion to the drywall board (14, 15), inserting the rib (31) into the preformed horizontal groove so as to align the reveal portion and the baseboard.
Haag shows all the claimed structural limitations. The claimed method steps would have been the obvious method steps of installing Haag’s drywall.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 13, 16, 21-22, 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to Barr, newly added limitations in the “ board system…” to “ prefabricated…”, “ preformed…” are considered product by process limitations and treated per office policy as set forth above. The change of the rejections based on Barr from 102 to 103 in response to newly added limitations are set forth above. The amended claims newly rejected, show the claimed limitations including “ vertical”, and “ directly”.
With respect to Haag, the reference in figures 2-3, shows the backing(10) fastened to the back of the board. The board is situated between 34 and 30a with the back side of the board laying against the backing. the referenced thus shows the backing fastened to the back of the drywall board as claimed. The reference also shows the baseboard as claimed. The claimed “baseboard” is reasonably interpreted to be read on Haag’s baseboard (12). The baseboard (12) also extends upwardly form a floor (11) as claimed.
Amended claim 24 is also newly rejected by Haag as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows different backing and reveal designs.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows different wall reveal attaching methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
/PHI D A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633