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 .
Response to Amendment
The following office action is in response to the amendment filed on December 19, 2025. The objection to the drawings has been overcome and is hereby withdrawn. The claims stand rejected as set forth below.
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) 1-3, 10-13, 15-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘207 (FR2661207) in view of ‘935 (FR3022935).
For claim 1, ‘207 discloses a bracing accessory (figs. 1-4) suitable for attaching at least one insulating product to a wall surface to be lined, comprising a rod (1), a first end of which is adapted to be attached to a structural element of said wall surface, and a second end of which is adapted to pass through said insulating product and a sealing membrane, said bracing accessory comprising a sealing element (16) comprising a hole (18) having a perimeter that has a shape complementary to a cross-section of the rod and wherein said rod is of substantially flat shape.
‘207 does not disclose that the sealing element is made of an elastic material adapted to allow reversible elastic attachment by friction of said sealing element on the rod.
‘935 discloses a bracing accessory (fig. 1) with a sealing element (24) that is made of an elastic material adapted to allow reversible elastic attachment by friction of the sealing element to a rod.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the sealing element of ‘207 so that it is made of elastic material as made obvious by ‘935 to increase the adjustability of the bracing accessory during installation and use. Further, due to the inherent elastic properties of elastic material, the sealing element taught by ‘207 will also provide sealing properties around the interface between the insulation panel and the rod. Thus, any airflow through the insulation material along the rod will be substantially reduced due to the inherent sealing properties of the elastic material.
For claim 2, the combination discloses that the hole is a through-hole (‘935 fig. 3, 26).
For claim 3, the combination does not explicitly state that the rod (‘207 fig. 1, 1) is metallic however it would be obvious to make the rod metallic to increase the strength of the rod and make the rod bendable.
For claim 10, the combination discloses that the rod comprises at its second end a tip (‘207, fig. 1, 7), which is foldable between a plugging configuration, wherein said tip is arranged in the extension of the rod, and a configuration in which all or part of the tip is tilted outside the axis of the rod (the rod is foldable as seen in the folded parts 5 because the tip and parts 5 are the same material).
For claim 11, the combination discloses that the rod comprises at its second end a device for fastening to a filler plate, which comprises two grooves (‘207, fig. 1, 8) arranged at the periphery of the rod, in a theoretical plane orthogonal to the axis of the rod.
For claim 12, the combination discloses that the rod comprises at least one member (‘207 fig. 3, 5) for holding the insulating product which protrudes on the rod.
For claim 13, the combination discloses that the rod comprises a rough surface (‘207 fig. 3, 5, protrusions make the surface rough) adapted to come into contact with the perimeter of the hole of said sealing element.
For claim 15, the combination discloses that the rod comprises folds at lateral edges thereof (‘207 fig. 1, 2).
For claim 16, the combination discloses an assembly comprising a wall (‘935 figs. 1-3) to be lined with a structural element to which at least one modified bracing accessory according to claim 1 is attached, which passes through at least one insulating product (19) and at least one sealing membrane (21). It is also noted that ‘207, figure 4, discloses the device used to hold insulation against a wall in the same manner as ‘935. Both references are in the same field of endeavor.
For claim 17, the combination discloses that said at least one bracing accessory is attached to a filler plate (‘935 fig. 1, 11, 12), which is itself attached to a cladding/facing (see submitted translation).
For claim 19, the modified combination discloses a method for attaching at least one insulating product to a wall surface to be lined (‘207 fig. 4), comprising, in this order: attaching a first end of the rod of a bracing accessory according to claim 1 to a structural element (‘207 fig. 4, 10) of said wall surface, placing at least one insulating product against the wall surface, such that said rod passes right through, and plugging a sealing membrane (‘935 fig. 2, 4) , and the sealing element (120) of said bracing accessory, onto a second end of the modified rod.
For claim 20, the combination discloses a method for lining a wall, comprising implementing a method for attaching at least one insulating product according to claim 19, and mounting at least one filler plate (‘935 fig. 1, 12) onto said bracing accessory, and a cladding (inherent) onto said filler plate (12).
For claim 21, the combination discloses that the seal element (‘207 fig. 2) is adapted to be slid along said rod and maintained in position solely by friction between the modified elastic material and the rod (when the seal is made elastic as disclosed in ‘935).
Claim(s) 4-5, 7-9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘207 (FR2661207) in view of ‘935 (FR3022935) as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of ‘242 (EP3190242).
For claim 4, the combination does not disclose that the sealing element comprises a rise in which said hole is formed, and which extends along an axis of the rod over a distance greater than 2mm.
‘242 discloses a bracing accessory (fig. 6) with a sealing element (220, 230) that is made of an elastic material, wherein the sealing element comprises a rise (235) in which the hole is formed (it would be obvious to extend the rise along an axis of the rod over a distance greater than 2mm as a matter of design choice to increase the grip of the sealing element on the rod.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to add a rise that extends a distance greater than 2mm to the sealing element of the combination as made obvious by ‘242 to provide a handle for handling the sealing element.
For claim 5, the combination discloses that the rise (‘242 fig. 8, 235) extends from a flat base (234), said flat base being adapted to abut against the sealing membrane during the insertion of the sealing element onto the rod.
For claim 7, it would be obvious to make the sealing element comprise at least one rigid material which has a flexural modulus greater than 100MPa and which constitutes the flat base since this merely involves selecting a well-known material to get predictable and expected results like increased strength.
For claim 8, the combination discloses that the sealing element comprises a reversible locking member of the sealing element on the rod (‘242 fig. 7, 225).
For claim 9, the combination discloses that the sealing element is formed from two jaws (notches) (‘242 fig. 7, 226) adapted to grip the rod in a reversible elastic attachment configuration by friction of the sealing element on the rod.
For claim 14, the combination discloses a cup (‘242 fig. 7, 220) adapted to be arranged between the insulating product and the membrane and to form a counter-support to said sealing element in order to clamp the membrane around its insertion opening.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive. The applicant argues that Lebraut ‘207 and Tolleret ‘935 do not teach a device as recited in claim 1. Applicant argues that Lebraut ‘207 teaches a rigid rod with a plate 16 that is not attached by an elastic friction grip on the rod, but instead by mechanical engagement. Applicant further argues that Lebrat ‘207 lacks the features recited for the claimed sealing element, i.e. it is not made of an elastic material.
In regard to Tolleret ‘935, the applicant argues that the primary purpose of that device is to act as a patch to provide an air tight seal around the rod penetration. Further, Tolleret ‘935 is not supporting heavy loads. The applicant then argues that since Lebraut ‘207’s device is for supporting insulation panels and Tolleret ‘935’s device is for sealing around a rod penetration through an insulation layer, they are not combinable. While the examiner agrees with the applicant’s summary of the devices individually, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the conclusion that they are not combinable. The examiner contends that both devices are rod and plate structures that are supporting insulation panels against a wall or ceiling. Since they are both solving the same or similar problem, they are analogous art that can easily be combined.
The applicant argues that Lebraut ‘207 is for “heavy” loads. This does not appear to be true because insulation panels are typically very light in weight and would not be considered “heavy” loads. Also, both devices are also used in the same manner. They are both also used to hold the insulation in place and can also be used to attach panels alongside the insulation. Both Lebraut ‘207 and Tolleret ‘935 have members 12 that are configured to hold facia members. Therefore, since both devices are, again, used in the same manner in the same field of endeavor, they are combinable in the manner set forth in the office action above. The plate members of either device do not have to be strong rigid members capable of holding heavy loads. The plate members merely lock or secure the light insulation members in place so they don’t move. Further, once the facia panels are put in place, the plate does not even really need to do that job any longer because the facia panels would also help prevent the insulation from moving. However, by combining the references as set forth above, the base reference to Lebraut ‘207 is improved by using the known elastic sealing member taught by Tolleret ‘935. As pointed out by the applicant, Tolleret ‘935 teaches that the elastic plate member will provide air-tightness around the rod because the hole in the plate is slightly smaller than the rod so that it stretches to fit tightly over the rod. This stretching will also allow the plate to be adjusted if needed. Thus, the combination as set forth above will provide Lebraut ‘207 with a better plate member because, not only will it still function to hold the insulation members in place, it will also provide an air-tight seal to increase the insulation’s function in a wall, i.e. to keep drafts from passing through cracks and crevices in a wall to keep the warm are in and the cold air out, or vice-versa. The examiner contends that combining the two references is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art, would not destroy the base reference or cause it not to function, and would actually be an improvement to the base reference. The examiner therefore contends that the combination of references is proper.
In further response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as even pointed out by applicant, Tolleret ‘935 teaches that elastic plate members provide air tight seals around rods that pass through insulation members. Therefore, using an elastic plate member on Lebraut ‘207’s rod, there will be an air-tight seal produced that is also capable of holding the insulation members in place. It will also be adjustable as needed due to the flexible nature of the plate. It will have the ability to be stretched and moved if necessary. The elastic plate will also lock in behind the members 4, 5 of Lebraut ‘270’s rod in the same manner as the plate 16 locks in behind them.
In response to applicant's argument that Tolleret ‘935s grooves and different shaped rod would not be compatible with Lebraut ‘270’s flat “dagger” plate design, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, the teaching of Tolleret ‘935 is that of a plate on a rod that is made of a resilient material that conforms to the shape of the rod it surrounds. The examiner is not placing a plate with a round hole on a flat “dagger” like blade. In actuality, the examiner is relying on what Tolleret ‘935 is teaching and using that to modify Lebraut ‘270. This combination would keep Lebraut ‘270’s plate essentially the same shape but only make it of a resilient material with a hole conformed to fit over the dagger like blade. This is how the examiner is relying on the teaching of Tolleret ‘935. Again, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that placing a round hole over a square peg would not provide the desired results.
Finally, in response to the applicant’s argument that there would be no reasonable expectation of success, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As pointed out above, the examiner has clearly shown that based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art and what the references teach as a whole, there is certainly a reasonable expectation of success in the combination of Lebraut ‘270 and Tolleret ‘935. This combination would provide a more versatile bracing accessory that will not only securely hold the insulation in place, but it will allow the plate to be adjusted and seal the space around the rod member to prevent unwanted drafts to pass through the hole in the insulation produced by the rod passing therethrough.
With respect to the dependent claims, due to the fact that the independent claims remain rejected, they also stand rejected for the reasons set forth in the above rejection.
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 Brian Glessner whose telephone number is 571-272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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