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 .
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) 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2015/0107175 to Frazier et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,604,167 to Hays.
Regarding claim 1, Frazier discloses a wall panel (abstract) having an inner skin and outer skin (fig. 3: see left and right sides) of a fiber reinforced polymer (claim 10, fiberglass [0201], [0235]) wrapped around the edge of the panel (fig. 8: see side coverings of panels 300, being the same as the skins), a foam center (substrate [0201], [0234]) and a connector (fig. 8: 316b) located between inner and outer skins. However, the connector is not explicitly disclosed as being steel. Hays discloses connectors being steel (welding studs, inherently steel for welds, 28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frazier by using steel for the connector as a means to better strengthen the structure. The use of such materials as disclosed above would have been obvious to on at the time of filing to use these materials for interior or exterior components.
Regarding claim 2, the connector may inherently connect to a building by a single point.
Regarding claims 4, 18, Frazier discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions of deflection. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frazier to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims in order to better protect from breakage.
Regarding claims 5, 15, a rain cover is not disclosed by Frazier. Hays discloses a cover capable of protecting from rain (component 18 of Hays). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frazier by adding a cover to protect from various harmful conditions.
Regarding claims 7, 16, Frazier discloses the use of paint [0259].
Regarding claim 9, a thermoset resin is disclosed [0078] but not the method of vacuum infusing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frazier by using such a means as this is an obvious way of adding such a material.
Regarding claims 10, 19, an inner frame is disclosed (fig. 2: 22).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding the use of a vacuum pushing resin, this is not explicitly disclosed by the method of extrusion is disclosed [0007]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frazier by using such a means for fabrication as extrusion is functionally equivalent to a vacuum pushing material. Additionally, a finish such as paint may be used [0259].
Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to use the paint [0259] to an outer skin.
Regarding claim 17, an attachment bracket (332, 316b and 316a) are disclosed.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8, 11, 14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not disclose these structural limitations combined with the claims from which they depend from.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Basil Katcheves whose telephone number is (571)272-6846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST.
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 on (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.
/BASIL S KATCHEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633