DETAILED ACTION
This Office action follows the Restriction Requirement filed on 12/23/2025 and is responsive to applicant’s reply filed on 6/22/2026. Currently, claims 1-44 are pending.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I, including claims 1-25 and 39-44 in the reply filed on 6/22/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 26-38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/22/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 6/13/2024 is being considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figures 5A-5E and 7D-7F, the drawings are objected to because the drawings each lack a reference character described in the specification. Although there is descriptive text at the bottom of each figure (note that the text intended for Fig. 5B is under Fig. 5A). Each figure should be provided with at least one reference character pointing to an element or feature that is described in the specification. MPEP 608.02. This objection can be overcome by inserting at least one reference character into each of the drawings, with the reference character described in the Specification.
Figures 5A-5F, 6A-6D and 7A-7F, reference characters “01”, “02”, “03”, “04”, “05” and “06” throughout the figures are objected to because the reference characters are not described in the Specification. This objection can be overcome by deleting the reference characters, or by describing each of the reference characters in the Specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “22” has been used to designate “rail”, “top rail” and “clip rail” in the Specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). he drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“insulative layer” (claims 11 and 16; note that the Specification does not point to any element, in particular as being the insulative layer).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Note that “means for engaging the tracks” throughout the claims was treated as upper and lower tabs (60a, 60b), as described in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-25 and 40-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, “two adjacent building structures” is indefinite because the limitation does not refer to the previously recited plurality of building structures. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “two adjacent building structures of the plurality of building structures”.
Claim 1, “the building structures” is indefinite because the limitation does not refer to the previously recited plurality of building structures. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the plurality of building structures”. See also claims 11, 14, 18, 20, 25, 40 and 41.
Claim 1, “the tracks” is indefinite because the limitation does not refer to the previously recited plurality of tracks. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the plurality of tracks”. See also “the track” in claims 6-7, 9, 21 and 40.
Claim 1, “the building structure lower edge groove” and “the building structure” (last two lines) is indefinite because the claim previously recited a plurality of building structures. Which building structure is the limitation referring to in the claim? See also claims 3, 5, 10, 11, 14, 18, 20, 25, 40, 41 and 43.
Claim 2, “each clip” is indefinite because the claims previously recite a plurality of clips. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the plurality of clips”. See also claim 4. See also “the clips” in claim 8, and 17, 19, 42 and 44.
Claim 2, “each building structure” is indefinite because the claims previously recite a plurality of building structures. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the plurality of building structures”. See also claims 17 and 42.
Claim 5, “it” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the term is referring to in the claim. Does applicant intend for “it” to refer to the building structure or something else? This rejection can be overcome by explicitly writing out the claim element “it” represents in the claim. See also claim 20.
Claim 6, “in the means” is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “wherein the means” or “in which the means” or equivalent.
Claim 7, “the clip means for engaging” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. The claims previously recite means for engaging, but not clip means for engaging. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the means for engaging”.
Claim 11, “existing building sheathing” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claim does not previously require such item. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “an existing building sheathing” or equivalent.
Claim 15, “upper building structure”, “lower building structure” and “both building structures” are indefinite because the claim previously recites a plurality of building structures. Does applicant intend for the limitations to refer to the previously recited building structures or different/additional building structures?
Claim 41, “the clips top surface profile” and “the clip rail” are indefinite because each limitation lack antecedent basis. The claims previously require each of the plurality of clips to have a top surface profile, but not clip top surface profiles. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the top surfaces of each of the clips” or equivalent. Further, the claims do not previously recite a clip rail. The claims previously require the top surface of each of the plurality of clips to include a rail. Thus, this rejection can be overcome by simply reciting, “the rail”.
Any remaining claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 40-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Madl, Jr. (US 3561182) (‘Madl’).
Claim 1, Madl provides a building insulation and cladding system comprising:
a plurality of tracks 17 securable to a building exterior (note that the building exterior is not positively recited and thus not required, but that the plurality of tracks are suitable to be secured to a building exterior 11; Fig. 2);
a plurality of building structures 12 each having a lower edge groove 13; and
a plurality of clips (19 alone, or 19 and 22 collectively) configured to join two adjacent building structures (see top and bottom building structures in Fig. 3) and to secure the building structures to the tracks (Fig. 3), said clips including:
means 20 for engaging one of the plurality of tracks (Figs. 1-3), and
a rail 22 to be received in the building structure lower edge groove (Figs. 1-3) and to support the building structure (Figs. 1-3).
Claim 2, Madl further provides in which each clip further includes a shelf 44 inward of the rail (rail portion 25 extends outward beyond the shelf and thus under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the shelf is located inward of the rail, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-3) and each building structure further includes an inner lower edge to be seated on the clip shelf (Fig. 3).
Claim 3, Madl further provides in which the building structure further includes a top edge profile with at least a first and second ascending steps (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the center groove portion is a first step and one of the inner or outer raised portions is the second ascending step; Fig. 3).
Claim 5, Madl further provides in which the building structure further includes an outer lower edge to be seated on or near the first step of a building structure beneath it (seated near the first step of a building structure beneath it; Fig. 3).
Claim 40, Madl provides a building insulation and cladding system comprising:
a plurality of tracks 25 securable to a building exterior (note that the building exterior is not positively recited and thus not required, but that the plurality of tracks are suitable to be secured to a building exterior 11; Fig. 2);
a plurality of building structures 12 each having:
an upper edge with a first profile (upper edge of 12 with first profile; Fig. 3), and a lower edge with a second profile (lower edge of 12 with second profile; Figs. 1-3); and
a plurality of clips (19 alone or 19 and 22) configured to join two adjacent building structures (Fig. 3) and to secure the building structures to the tracks (Fig. 3), said clips including:
means 20 for engaging the tracks (Figs. 1-3),
a top surface profile (top of 44) complementary to the building structure lower edge second profile to support a building structure on the clip (Fig. 2), and a bottom surface profile (bottom of 44) complementary to the building structure upper edge first profile to snap fit a building structure under the clip (note that “snap fit” was treated merely as a close fitting engagement and does not require any sort of particular snapping action, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 2).
Claim 41, Madl further provides in which the clips top surface profile includes a rail and the building structures each have a lower edge second profile with a groove receiving the clip rail therein (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the top surface of the clips are integrally coupled with the rail and thus the lower edge of each of the building structures with a second profile has a groove receiving the clip rail therein, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 3).
Claim 42, Madl further provides in which each clip top surface profile further includes a shelf inward of the rail (44 is located inward of 25; Fig. 3) and each building structure lower edge second profile further includes an inner lower edge to be seated on the clip shelf (lower portion of 12 is suitable to be seated on 44, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 3).
Claim 43, Madl further provides in which the building structure upper edge first profile includes at least a first and second ascending steps (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the center groove portion is a first step and one of the inner or outer raised portions is the second ascending step; Fig. 3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madl, Jr. (US 3561182) (‘Madl’) as above in view of Williams (US 1982560).
Claim 4, Madl teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as above, and further teaches in which each clip further engages the second step (Fig. 3), but does not teach each clip including lower teeth for engaging the second step. However, Williams teaches clips including lower teeth 5c for engaging a step of a panel B (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include lower teeth in each clip for engaging the second step, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means for engaging panels to better accommodate thermal expansion and allow for snap-in press-fit engagement with the building structures.
Claim 44, Madl teaches all the limitations of claim 43 as above, and further teaches in which each clip further engages the second step (Fig. 3), but does not teach each clip bottom surface profile including bottom teeth for engaging the second step. However, Williams teaches clips including bottom teeth 5c for engaging a step of a panel B (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include on each clip bottom surface profile, bottom teeth for engaging the second step, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means for engaging panels to better accommodate thermal expansion and allow for snap-in press-fit engagement with the building structures.
Claim(s) 4 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madl, Jr. (US 3561182) (‘Madl’) as above in view of Manske (US 2041773).
Claim 4, Madl teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as above, and further teaches in which each clip further engages the second step (Fig. 3), but does not teach each clip including lower teeth for engaging the second step. However, Manske teaches clips 25 including lower teeth 26 for engaging a step of a panel 23 (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include lower teeth in each clip for engaging the second step, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means for engaging panels to better accommodate thermal expansion and allow for snap-in press-fit engagement with the building structures.
Claim 44, Madl teaches all the limitations of claim 43 as above, and further teaches in which each clip further engages the second step (Fig. 3), but does not teach each clip bottom surface profile including bottom teeth for engaging the second step. However, Manske teaches clips 25 including bottom teeth 26 for engaging a step of a panel 23 (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include on each clip bottom surface profile, bottom teeth for engaging the second step, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means for engaging panels to better accommodate thermal expansion and allow for snap-in press-fit engagement with the building structures.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madl, Jr. (US 3561182) (‘Madl’) as above in view of Field (US 4580385).
Claim 7, Madl further teaches the track being a vertically disposed member (Figs. 1-3) with a continuous slot, but does not teach spaced slots and the clip means for engaging including spaced tabs inserted into the spaced slots. However, Field teaches a system comprising a vertically disposed member 18 with spaced slots 16 therein and clip means 30 for engaging including spaced tabs (34, 35) inserted into the spaced slots (Figs. 2 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system such that the vertically disposed member has spaced slots therein and the clip means for engaging include spaced tabs inserted into the spaced slots, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to attach a clip to a vertically disposed member without requiring tools.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madl, Jr. (US 3561182) (‘Madl’) in view of Bilge (US 10900239).
Claim 8, Madl teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as above, but is silent as to the clips being made of plastic. However, Bilge teaches a system comprising parts including clips made of metal or plastic (col. 8, lines 4-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material of the clips to be made of plastic, with the reasonable expectation of success of utilizing a well-known, readily available material that is cost effective, light weight and durable, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madl, Jr. (US 3561182) (‘Madl’) and Field (US 4580385) as above and further in view of Bombino et al. (US 20130174506) (‘Bombino’).
Claim 9, Madl and Field teach all the limitations of claim 7 as above. Madl does not teach the track being a Z-girt. However, Bombino teaches a system comprising a track comprising a Z-girt (72; [0049]; Fig. 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system such that that track is a Z-girt, with the reasonable expectation of success of improving thermal efficiency by reducing the contact area, limiting heat transfer to the thickness of the web, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madl, Jr. (US 3561182) (‘Madl’) in view of Cullen (US 20070261353).
Claim 10, Madl teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above, and further teaches the building structure including an insulative panel (under the basic properties of materials, the panel of Madl nonetheless comprises at least some insulative value, as exceedingly broadly claimed). Madl does not teach an exterior epoxy coating. However, Cullen teaches a system comprising a building structure including an insulative panel with an exterior epoxy coating (claims 5-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the building structure to include a combination of an insulative panel with an exterior epoxy coating, with the reasonable expectation of success of providing a desirable aesthetic appearance, such as Sandstone or stucco (Cullen [0061]-[0062]).
Claim 14, Madl teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Madl does not teach the building structures including a protective outer coating. However, Cullen teaches a system comprising a building structure including an insulative panel with an protective outer coating (claims 5-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the building structure to include a protective outer coating, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to coat the building structure to increase fireproofing (Cullen [0060]).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madl, Jr. (US 3561182) (‘Madl’) in view of Knight et al. (US 20120137610) (’Knight’).
Claims 11-13, Madl teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above, but is silent as to [claim 11] an insulative layer between the building structures and existing building sheathing, [claim 12] a breather layer behind the insulative layer, and [claim 13] a water-resistant barrier behind the insulative layer. However, Knight teaches a system comprising an insulative layer between the building structures and existing building sheathing (“insulation panels” 30 [0094]; Fig. 1), a breather layer behind the insulative layer (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “weather resistant barrier” [0093] constitutes a breather layer, as exceedingly broadly claimed), and [claim 13] a water-resistant barrier behind the insulative layer ([0093]; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system to include an insulative layer between the building structures and existing building sheathing, to include a breather layer behind the insulative layer and to include a water-resistant barrier behind the insulative layer, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to further insulate the building structure and further protect the building structure from the elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-25 and 39 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, specifically Madl, Jr. (US 3561182) (‘Madl’) does not teach or disclose, alone or in combination all the elements and features of the claimed building insulation and cladding system including, inter alia:
a subframe for mounting to a building exterior and including:
spaced vertically extending Z-shaped side tracks with front face clip slots, and upper and lower subframe members connected between the spaced vertically extending Z-shaped side tracks;
a plurality of building structures each having a lower edge groove; and
a plurality of clips configured to join an upper building structure to an adjacent lower building structure and to secure both building structures to the subframe, said clips including:
spaced tabs each received in a side track front face clip slot, and a rail to be received in a building structure lower edge groove, as recited in claim 15.
Bombino et al. (US 20130174506) (‘Bombino’) teaches a Z-girt 72, but does not teach clip slots for receiving clips. Further, it would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill to combine Madl’s system with Bombino’s system to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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 Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights