DETAILED ACTION
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, 7-13, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehrhuber (EP 1,925,741) in view of by “The use of foam glass-based aggregates for the production of ultra-lightweight porous concrete for the production of noise barrier wall panels”, Bubenik et al, and in further view of Corbin (U.S. 20150376848)
In re Claims 1 and 22, Lehrhuber teaches a highway sound wall with a pair of spaced apart vertical members (4) and a pair of spaced apart mesh members (2,2’) extending between and retained within the vertical members, thereby forming the sound wall panel assembly. Loose filling material (32) is placed in the space between the mesh members (2,2”). (Figure 1a Paragraphs 0003,0283, 0292) Lehrhuber teaches that the vertical members are H-beams having a flange portion and a body portion. (Figure 4112 on page 67,4122 on page 69)
Lehrhuber does not specifically teach that the filling material is made from foam glass aggregates.
Bubenik teaches a sound wall panel assembly made with foamed glass aggregates. (Figure 1, Abstract, Introduction)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lehrhuber with the foamed glass aggregates. The material is light weight and effective a dampening noise.
Lehrhuber teaches a pair of spaced apart mesh members (2,2’) extending between and retained within the vertical members (4), thereby forming the sound wall panel assembly. The spaced apart mesh members (2,2’) contain the filling material(32) so their size is configured to retain this filling material. (Figure 1a)
Lehrhuber does not teach that the mesh members are sized to contain the foamed glass aggregates. However, changes in size, shape, and proportion which have been held to involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137; In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to size the Lehrhuber mesh members to contain the foamed glass aggregates taught by Bubenik as well.
Lehrhuber does not teach the vertical members had at least one attached stop block or at least one vertical edge of the mesh members with an attached bar which engages the at least one stop block.
Corbin teaches a sound barrier (10) with vertical members (16) with at least one attached stop block (44) and at least one vertical edge of a panel (14a) with an attached bar(22) which engages the at least one stop block (44).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lehrhuber with the stop block and bar taught by Corbin. These features allow for the installation of sound installation panels of varying levels of thickness between the flanges of the vertical members. In the combination, the attached bar would be attached to the at least on vertical edge of the mesh members.
In re Claims 9-11, Lehrhuber teaches the sound wall panel assembly is greater than 6 feet (183 cm), 8 feet (244 cm), or 10 feet (305 cm) tall. (Paragraph 0048)
In re Claims 12-13, Lehrhuber teaches the sound wall panel assembly is greater than 4 feet (122 cm) or 6 (183 cm) feet wide. (Paragraph 0043,0049)
In re Claims 7, 8, and 24, the modified Lehrhuber has been previously discussed. Lehrhuber teaches a pair of spaced apart mesh members (2,2’) extending between and retained within the vertical members (4), thereby forming the sound wall panel assembly. (Figure 1a) Lehrhuber teaches that the vertical members are H-beams having a flange portion and a body portion. (Figure 4112 on page 67,4122 on page 69)
Lehrhuber teaches multiple sound barrier sound barrier cross-sectional configurations. Figure 6 teaches vertical members (10,110) which has at least one stop block/shim (47) attached to the flange portion. Figure 5 teaches at least one stop block (44) attached to the body portion. Figures 5 and 6 show at least one vertical edge (which can mean two vertical edges) of the panels (14a) has an attached (22) bar which engages stop block (44) on the body portion and stop block/shim (47) on the flange portion. The examiner notes that while these Figures 5 and 6 show separate configurations, Figure 4 establishes that the same vertical member can have different configuration of connections on either side of the vertical member. Therefore, the configurations of Figures 5 and Figure 6 could also be applied to the same vertical member with one configuration on the right side and the other on the left. This would allow flexibility in attaching sound dampening panels/material of different thicknesses to the same vertical member. In the combination, the attached bar would be attached to the at least on vertical edge of the mesh members.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued that the Lehrhuber grid is not sized to contained the foamed glass aggregates. The examiner maintains that as the reference shows the mesh being sized to contain one type of filling material, then resizing it to fill another would be obvious as well. One of ordinary skill in the art would not select a mesh to hold back aggregate that has openings that are larger than the aggregate. One would clearly understand that, if that was done, the aggregate would merely fall through the openings and the mesh would be useless.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights