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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention 1 in the reply filed on 12/1/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 25-28 have been withdrawn. Currently, claims 23-24 are pending and examined below.
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 23-24 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 23 recites the limitation "the metal sheet". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallance (U.S. Patent No. 8,794,864).
Regarding claim 23, Vallance discloses a cam lock (1, Figs. 4a-7) capable of locking insulated panels in place (Fig. 2), comprising a cylindrical body having a key (20) formed from at least one of a protrusion and an indentation that gives the cam lock a distinct shape that is complementary to the shape of a hole in which the cam lock can be inserted, ensuring that the cam lock can only be inserted in the hole and subsequently twisted in the correct orientation a clockwise or counter-clockwise intended direction up to a rotation limit; an upper section of the cylindrical body formed by a flange (22) and an aperture (10) in which a tool can be inserted that allows for the twisting of the cam lock; a recess (space between 20 and 22, Fig. 4b) of gradual indentation and via the gradual indentation, permits the rotation of the cam lock in only the clockwise or counter-clockwise intended direction and up to a rotation limit; a section (15) forming a protrusion that, when the cam lock is twisted into place, to obtain a further frictional hold on the final position of the cam lock; and a section (16) forming a protrusion that, as the cam lock is twisted into place, pushes on the metal part of an insulated panel to bring that insulated panel in close connection with another insulated panel. Vallance discloses that it is known to have a cam lock having a flange as set forth above that is parallel to the surface of panels that extends away from the cylindrical body (Fig. 2), but does not disclose that the panels having metal sheets and being insulated, and wherein the recess aligns with the metal sheet and the cam lock crushes into the insulated foam of the insulated panels. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an insulated panel that comprised of metal sheets to have a durable and lightweight panel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having panels that were insulated and comprised of metal sheets to provide a more durable and lightweight structure, further making it obvious to have the recess aligns with the metal sheet and the cam lock crushes into the insulated foam of the insulated panels.
Regarding claim 24, Vallance discloses one additional recess (21) as set forth above, but does not disclose the additional recess being aligned with tongue and groove connection mechanisms within the insulated panels, preventing the cam lock from being pulled out of the hole by engaging the metal skins of the insulated panels. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an insulated panel comprising of a metal skin along with tongue and grove connections, wherein the additional recess is aligned with the tongue and groove connection mechanisms to help further secure the connection of the panels together by allowing the cam lock to engage the metal skins of the tongue and groove, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having a panel that comprised of a tongue and groove connection for better securing means between the two members.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J BUCKLE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3739. 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 at 5712726754. 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 J BUCKLE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3633