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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/22/26 has been entered.
Drawings/Specification
The substitute drawings and substitute specification were received on 1/12/26. The specification and drawings are not acceptable because they introduce new matter. The original disclosure does not address nor provide for a vinyl notch gap as shown in Figs. 4B-4D.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites a “vinyl notch gap”. This claim feature is not present in the original disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stanfill, US 2014/0260056.
Regarding claim 4:
Stanfill discloses a vinyl siding system (para. 0019, the outer layer is vinyl) comprising:
a first vinyl siding panel including:
a first body that includes a first planar surface (20, refer to Figs. 9 and 10);
a first male end (50) on one side of the first body, wherein the first male end forms a hook shape; and
a first female end (40) at an opposite side of the first body from the first male end, wherein the first female end includes:
a first tab end (42) that is shaped to receive and securely engage a male end of another vinyl siding panel; and
a first nailing hem (44) defined opposite the first tab end for supporting a body of the other another vinyl siding panel; and
a second vinyl siding panel (identical to the first, refer to Figs. 9 and 10) including:
a second body that includes a planar surface;
a second male end on one side of the second body, wherein the second male end forms a hook shape; and
a second female end at an opposite side of the second body from the second male end, wherein the second female end includes:
a second tab end that is shaped to receive and securely engage a male end of another vinyl siding panel; and
a second nailing hem defined opposite the second tab end for supporting a body of the other another vinyl siding panel,
wherein the first male end (50) engages the second female end (40, refer to Fig. 9) such that the first vinyl siding panel and the second vinyl siding panel slide along a plane that is parallel to outer visible surfaces resulting from the first vinyl siding panel engaging the second vinyl siding panel (prior to nailing, the panels may be slide relative to each other), and outer visible surfaces of a resulting plane formed by the second vinyl siding panel and the first vinyl siding panel are substantially co-planar (refer to Fig. 10) and wherein the sliding engagement of the first vinyl siding panel and the second vinyl siding panel allow for expansion and contraction due to weather conditions.
The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process.
Regarding claim 6:
Stanfill discloses wherein the panels each have a substantially flat exterior surface configured to simulate appearance of natural flat materials (para. 0019 – simulating wood or stone).
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.
Claims 5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfill, US 2014/0260056 in view of Mowery et al., US 7,040,067 and Culpepper et al., US 2018/0202166.
Regarding claims 8 and 10:
Stanfill discloses a vinyl siding panel including:
a body that includes a planar surface;
a wood layer affixed to an underside of the body;
a male end on one end of the body, wherein the male end forms a hook shape; and
a female end at an opposite end of the body from the male end, wherein the female end includes:
a tab end that is shaped to receive and securely engage a male end of another vinyl siding panel; and
a nailing hem defined opposite the tab end for supporting a body of a second vinyl siding panel,
wherein when the male end of the vinyl siding panel slides to engage a female end of a second vinyl siding panel along a plane that is parallel to an outer visible surface resulting from the vinyl siding panel engaging the second vinyl siding panel, such that the outer visible surface of the second vinyl siding panel and the vinyl siding panel are substantially co- planar (refer to the rejection of claim 4 above),
wherein the sliding engagement of the vinyl siding panel and the second vinyl siding panel allow for expansion and contraction due to weather conditions.
Stanfill does not disclose a foam insulation layer affixed to an underside of the body.
Mowery discloses a vinyl siding system having a foam insulation layer (44) affixed to an underside of the body.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to substitute foam material as suggested by Mowery for the wood of Stanfill in order to provide insulation to the underlying building.
Stanfill does not expressly disclose wherein the vinyl siding panel overlaps with a third vinyl siding panel such that a second resulting outer visible surface of the third vinyl siding panel is substantially co-planar with the vinyl siding panel in a horizontal direction.
Culpepper discloses a siding panel wherein the vinyl siding panel overlaps with a third vinyl siding panel such that a second resulting outer visible surface of the third vinyl siding panel is substantially aligned coplanar with the vinyl siding panel in a horizontal direction (refer to Figs. 7 and 16D).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to provide a vertical edge overlap in the paneling of Stanfill as suggested by Culpepper in order to effectively and aesthetically cover surfaces of longer length.
Regarding claim 5:
Stanfill in view of Culpepper discloses wherein the first vinyl siding panel and the second vinyl panel are installed in at least one of a horizontal orientation and a vertical orientation.
Regarding claim 11:
Stanfill discloses wherein the panels each have a substantially flat exterior surface configured to simulate appearance of natural flat materials (para. 0019 – simulating wood or stone).
Regarding claims 7, 9, 12 and 13:
Stanfill in view of Mowery does not disclose the exact dimensions claimed but Stanfill specifies that the dimensions could be modified accordingly (para. 0020).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to construct the siding panel of Stanfill to have a size within the claimed range, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). There would be no unexpected or unpredictable result obtained from making the width between 6.5 and 9 inches and the thickness from 0,5 to 2.0 inches. There is no evidence that the claimed dimensions not specifically taught by Stanfill in view of Mowery provide a criticality that would be unachievable and unexpected with a reasonable amount of experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that none of the references of record teach or suggest the feature of a panel sliding along a plane that is parallel to outer visible surfaces to engages another panel. The claims are directed to the vinyl siding system, rather than the method of making/using it. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. The panels of Stanfill may engage and then slide as claimed in the Z direction prior to be fixed in place by fastener.
PNG
media_image1.png
293
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding applicant’s argument that none of the references of record disclose a foam setback, the examiner finds that the prior art discloses the combination including a foam setback as shown at reference numeral 62 above. With regards to a vinyl notch gap, the original disclosure did not include a vinyl notch gap.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
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.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633