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 .
Response to Amendment
The following office action is in response to the amendment filed on December 31, 2025. The examiner would like to point out that claims 1-21 and 33-43 are pending. Claims 33-43 are withdrawn and should be correctly labeled as such.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Morsink (EP2998458) in view of Hale et al. (2021/0372118) and Oesterheld (DE1805979).
For claim 1, Morsink discloses a cladding panel (figs. 1-7) for covering an external surface of a building, the cladding panel comprising: a structural frame (plurality of anchors 18); a substrate (41) attached to a first, external, surface of the structural frame; and a plurality of fasteners (fig. 5B, 20) that are formed on a second, internal, surface of the structural frame, the plurality of fasteners being arranged according to a predetermined pattern (fig. 1, pattern that fits/complements pattern of 1, 10); wherein each of the plurality of fasteners is configured for attachment to a corresponding one of a plurality of cladding alignment features (1) attached on the external surface of the building; and wherein the plurality of cladding alignment features are arranged on the external surface of the building according to the predetermined pattern, such that each of the plurality of fasteners is configured for alignment with, and attachment to, one of the plurality of cladding alignment features. Morsink does not specifically disclose that the structural frame includes a plurality of vertical stiffeners and a plurality of horizontal stiffeners arranged substantially orthogonal to the plurality of vertical stiffeners, or that the plurality of fasteners are formed on the plurality of vertical stiffeners.
Hale teaches that it is known to provide a cladding panel with a substrate panel 110(1) attached to a plurality of vertical and horizontal stiffeners. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Morsink’s panel with a plurality of vertical and horizontal stiffeners because the stiffeners will provide a strong, rigid frame to more securely support the substrate that is attached thereto. This would also allow for thinner substrates to be used because the strength of the overall panel would be provided by the stiffener structure.
In regard to the placement of the fasteners, Oesterheld teaches the use of a cladding panel with vertical stiffeners 2 attached to a substrate 1 with a plurality of fasteners 4, 5 attached to the vertical stiffeners. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the fasteners to the vertical stiffeners because the vertical stiffeners will provide more shear resistance than the horizontal stiffeners. Therefore, the vertical stiffeners will be able to carry the load of the substrate panel and transfer it to the building in a more efficient and secure fashion.
For claim 2, Morsink in view of Hale and Oesterheld disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Morsink further discloses one or more openings (fig. 1, openings in 41 corresponding to windows in the building) formed entirely through a thickness of the substrate, each of the one or more openings corresponding to an opening formed in the external surface of the building.
For claim 4, Morsink in view of Hale and Oesterheld disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein each of the plurality of fasteners comprises an alignment peg (Morsink fig. 5B, 20) while each of the plurality of cladding alignment features comprises a tapered slot (Morsink fig. 3, 11)(reversed), each alignment peg comprises a collar and a head attached to an end of the collar, the head having a width that is greater than a width of the collar; and the width of the head is greater than a width of a narrow end of the tapered slot.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the elements of the cladding panel so that the fasteners comprise a tapered slot and the cladding alignment features comprise an alignment peg since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. One would be motivated to rearrange the elements to increase the ease of assembly.
For claim 5, Morsink in view of Hale and Oesterheld disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein each tapered slot (Morsink fig. 3, 11) is oriented such that, when the cladding panel is affixed to the building, the alignment peg is moved into the narrow end of the tapered slot and held in place by a gravitational force (fig. 7a).
For claim 7, Morsink in view of Hale and Oesterheld disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Morsink further discloses a gap between the substrate and the external surface of the building when the cladding panel is installed on an exterior surface of the building (fig. 7b).
For claim 9, Morsink in view of Hale, Oesterheld, and Loyd disclose the basic claimed invention except for specifically disclosing that the fasteners are on the structural frame in a unitary manner. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the fasteners formed in the second surface of the structural frame in a unitary manner to increase the strength of structural frame.
For claim 10, Morsink in view of Hale and Oesterheld disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Morsink further discloses a system (figs. 1-7) for covering an external surface of a building (40), the system comprising: a plurality of cladding alignment features (1) attached to the external surface of the building according to a predetermined pattern; and a plurality of cladding panels (see claims “at least one plate (41)”), each of the plurality of cladding panels comprising: a structural frame (plurality of anchors 18); a substrate (41) attached to a first, external, surface of the structural frame; and a plurality of fasteners (20) that are formed on a second, internal, surface of the structural frame, the plurality of fasteners being arranged according to the predetermined pattern, such that each of the plurality of fasteners is configured for alignment with one of the plurality of cladding alignment features; wherein each of the plurality of fasteners is configured for attachment to a corresponding one of the plurality of cladding alignment features. Morsink does not specifically disclose that the structural frame includes a plurality of vertical stiffeners and a plurality of horizontal stiffeners arranged substantially orthogonal to the plurality of vertical stiffeners, or that the plurality of fasteners are formed on the plurality of vertical stiffeners.
Hale teaches that it is known to provide a cladding panel with a substrate panel 110(1) attached to a plurality of vertical and horizontal stiffeners. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Morsink’s panel with a plurality of vertical and horizontal stiffeners because the stiffeners will provide a strong, rigid frame to more securely support the substrate that is attached thereto. This would also allow for thinner substrates to be used because the strength of the overall panel would be provided by the stiffener structure.
In regard to the placement of the fasteners, Oesterheld teaches the use of a cladding panel with vertical stiffeners 2 attached to a substrate 1 with a plurality of fasteners 4, 5 attached to the vertical stiffeners. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the fasteners to the vertical stiffeners because the vertical stiffeners will provide more shear resistance than the horizontal stiffeners. Therefore, the vertical stiffeners will be able to carry the load of the substrate panel and transfer it to the building in a more efficient and secure fashion.
For claim 14, Morsink in view of Hale and Oesterheld disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Morsink further discloses one or more openings (fig. 1, openings in 41 corresponding to windows in the building) formed entirely through a thickness of the substrate, each of the one or more openings corresponding to an opening formed in the external surface of the building.
For claim 16, Morsink in view of Hale, Oesterheld, and Loyd disclose that each of the plurality of fasteners comprises an alignment peg (Morsink, fig. 5B, 20) while each of the plurality of cladding alignment features comprises a tapered slot (Morsink, fig. 3, 11)(reversed), each alignment peg comprises a collar and a head attached to an end of the collar, the head having a width that is greater than a width of the collar; and the width of the head is greater than a width of a narrow end of the tapered slot.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the elements of the cladding panel so that the fasteners comprise a tapered slot and the cladding alignment features comprise an alignment peg since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. One would be motivated to rearrange the elements to increase the ease of assembly.
For claim 17, Morsink in view of Hale, Oesterheld, and Loyd disclose that each tapered slot (Morsink, fig. 3, 11) is oriented such that, when the cladding panel is affixed to the building, the alignment peg is moved into the narrow end of the tapered slot and held in place by a gravitational force (Morsink, fig. 7a).
For claim 19, Morsink in view of Hale and Oesterheld disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Morsink further discloses a gap between the substrate and the external surface of the building when the cladding panel is installed on an exterior surface of the building (fig. 7b).
For claim 21, Morsink in view of Hale, Oesterheld, and Loyd disclose the basic claimed invention except for specifically disclosing that the fasteners are integrally formed on the frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fasteners formed in the second surface of the structural frame in a unitary manner to increase the strength of structural frame.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 8, 11-12, 15, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘458 (EP2998458) in view of Hale et al. (2021/0372118) and Oesterheld (DE1805979) and further in view of Loyd et al. (US2021/0222437).
For claim 3, Morsink in view of Hale and Oesterheld does not explicitly disclose a siding material attached to a surface of the substrate that is opposite a surface of the substrate by which the substrate is attached to the structural frame.
Loyd et al. discloses a cladding panel (fig. 5) comprising a structural frame (126) and a substrate (104) attached to the structural frame and a siding material (102) attached to a surface of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to add a siding material to the surface of the substrate of Morsink that is opposite a surface of the substrate by which the substrate is attached to the structural frame as made obvious by Loyd et al. to increase the aesthetic appearance of the building.
For claim 6, Morsink in view of Hale, Oesterheld, and Loyd disclose the obviousness of making the substrate comprise a waterproof finish panel (Loyd et al. [0036]) stainless steel is waterproof, to increase the durability of the cladding panel.
For claim 8, Morsink in view of Hale, Oesterheld, and Loyd disclose the obviousness of filling the gap with insulation (Loyd et al. [0096]) and it would be obvious to make it rigid insulation so it can stay in place.
For claims 11 and 12, Morsink in view of Hale, Oesterheld, and Loyd disclose that the building comprises a plurality of modular units assembled together (drywall and studs) to form the building and the one or more of the cladding panels has a width of at least two of the plurality of modular units that are laterally adjacent to each other (fig. 1, cladding panel 41 covers the entire front area of the building). Further, the building is also at least two stories tall and each story could be considered a modular unit. Therefore, there are modular units assembled together and the panel covers all of them as shown.
For claim 15, Morsink in view of Hale, Oesterheld, and Loyd disclose that each of the plurality of cladding panels comprises a siding material (Loyd et al. fig. 5, 102) attached to a surface of the substrate that is opposite a surface of the substrate by which the substrate is attached to the structural frame.
For claim 18, Morsink in view of Hale, Oesterheld, and Loyd disclose the obviousness of making the substrate comprise a waterproof finish panel (Loyd et al. [0036]) stainless steel is waterproof, to increase the durability of the cladding panel.
For claim 20, Morsink in view of Hale, Oesterheld, and Loyd disclose the obviousness of filling the gap entirely with insulation (Loyd et al. [0096]) and it would be obvious to make it rigid insulation so it can stay in place.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s arguments pertaining to the drawing objection made in the previous office action, the arguments are found persuasive and the objections are hereby withdrawn.
In response to applicant’s arguments pertaining to the 35 USC 112b rejections made in the previous office action, the arguments are found persuasive and the 112b rejections are hereby withdrawn.
In response to applicant’s arguments pertaining to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of the previous office action, the examiner agrees with what was discussed in the interview and the previous rejection has been overcome in view of European Patent No. 2998458 alone. However, the amendment made changed the scope of the claim and raised new issues that were not previously considered. Therefore, in light of newly discovered art, the claims stand rejected.
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 Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights