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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 of the claim, the word “said’ is repeated twice.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-5 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.
With regard to claim 1: Line 10 of the claim, the scope of the limitation “conventional wallboard” is unclear. In particular, it’s unclear as what characteristics or attributes makes a wallboard “conventional”. Examiner notes that the term “wallboard” is not limited to a specific material or configuration. Line 10 of the clam, the limitation “the multiple layers” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the plurality layers of conventional wallboard--.
Claims 1-5 are examined as best understood.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneller et al. (US 3,488,904).
With regard to claim 1: Schneller et al. discloses an interior wall (hollow partition 10) (figs. 1-2 and 4), comprising:
a frame including at least one footer (floor track 16), at least one header (ceiling track 18), at least one vertical frame member (at least one of the outer laminated studs 14) connecting at least one of said at least one footer (16) to at least one of said at least one header (18), said frame having a first side (A) and a second side (B) (fig. 1), and defining an interior frame space (within the frame) (fig. 4);
a first wallboard panel (12) fastened to said first side (A) of said frame (fig. 2);
at least one wallboard stud (one of the intermediate laminated studs 14) secured in said interior frame space (within the frame) (figs. 1 and 4), being fastened to said first wallboard panel (12 on first side A) and being dimensioned to extend from said first side (A) to said second side (B) (fig. 1), each said at least one wall board stud (one of the intermediated laminated studs 14) is assembled from and consists of a plurality of layers of wallboard (paper-covered gypsum board strips 24 with metal strip 20), the plurality of layers of wallboard (paper-covered gypsum board strips 24 with metal strip 20) being secured to each other into a unitary mass (figs. 1-2; col. 1, lines 60-67).
Schneller et al. discloses a second wallboard panel (12) being fastened to said frame and to said at least one wallboard stud (one of the intermediate laminated studs 14) for creating a continuous acoustic connection between said first wallboard panel and said second wallboard panel (figs. 1 and 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
471
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1: Schneller et al. (US 3,488,904)
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneller et al. (US 3,488,904) in view of Levesque (US 4,161,087 A1).
With regard to claim 2: Schneller et al. discloses that the frame comprises the at least one footer (floor track 16) and the at least one header (ceiling track 18) made of channels (fig. 1). The at least one wallboard stud of Schneller et al. is configured to have a thickness dimensioned to fill a cavity defined by walls of the channels (figs. 1-2).
Schneller et al. does not disclose said frame is made of metal channels, the frame comprising the at least one footer, the at least one header and the at least one vertical frame member.
However, Levesque discloses a wall comprising a frame made of metal channels, the frame comprising at least one footer (bottom channel 22), at least one header (top channel 22) and vertical frame members (outer studs 21) (figs. 1 and 2; col. 2, lines 53-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interior wall of Schneller et al. to have the frame comprising at least one footer, at least one header and outer vertical frame members made of metal channels such as taught by Levesque in order to provide an enclosed frame capable of bearing greater load. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the interior wall of Schneller et al. to have the frame be an enclosed frame comprising at least one footer, at least one header and outer vertical frame member made of metal channels such as taught by Levesque. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneller et al. (US 3,488,904) in view of Sessler et al. (US 2015/0361659 A1).
With regard to claim 3: Schneller et al. does not disclose an acoustic mat installed between said frame and a substrate.
However, Sessler et al. discloses an acoustic mat (acoustic dampening mat 26) installed between a frame (12, 14, 28 forming the perimeter of the interior wall) and a substrate (concrete floor and ceiling) (figs. 4-5; par. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interior wall of Schneller et al. to have an acoustic mat installed between said frame and substrate including a ceiling and floor such as taught by Sessler et al. in order to provide acoustic dampening between the floor levels of a building structure. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the interior wall of Schneller et al. to have an acoustic mat installed between the frame and substrate including a ceiling and floor such as taught by Sessler et al. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 4: Sessler et al. discloses that said acoustic mat (26) is disposed between said at least one footer (bottom angle members 28) and the substrate of the floor (figs. 4-5; par. [0037]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneller et al. (US 3,488,904) in view of Hyatt (US 3,423,893).
With regard to claim 5: Schneller et al. discloses that said at least one wallboard stud (one of the intermediate laminated studs 14) comprises a plurality of studs (figs. 1 and 4).
Schneller et al. does not disclose that said plurality of wallboard studs have an on center spacing of one of 12 and 24 inches, and said interior wall having a knock factor ratio of 0.8.
However, Hyatt discloses that the spacing of studs can reduce direct transmission of sound (col. 1, lines 45-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interior wall of Schneller et al. to adjust the spacing of the studs such as taught Hyatt in order to reduce the transmission of sound through the wall. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the interior wall of Schneller et al. to comprise one of a finite number of available dimensions comprising stud spacing, including the claimed on center spacing of one of 12 or 24 inches, to impart desirable properties such as reducing the transmission of sound. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the dimensions of the interior wall including the spacing of the studs of Schneller to impart desirable acoustic properties such as taught by Hyatt including, but not limited to, a knock factor ratio of 0.8. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
The previous objection of claims 1-5 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 2/27/26.
The previous rejection of claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 2/27/26.
The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sessler et al. (US 2015/0361659 A1) has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 2/27/26.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Schneller et al. discloses the use of metal fasteners inserted into the metal strip 20 that would create a resonating acoustic transmission pathway through the entire interior wall, and as such is counter to the objective of the present application, that being to reduce sound transmission through interior walls. Applicant submits that Schneller fail to contemplate an interior wall as recited in amended claim 1.
Examiner respectfully submits it’s unclear as to what subject matter in amended claim 1 is not taught by the reference of Schneller. Schneller discloses that each said at least one wall board stud (one of the intermediated laminated studs 14) is assembled from and consists of a plurality of layers of wallboard (paper-cover gypsum board strips 24 with metal strip 20), the plurality of layers of wallboard being secured to each other into a unitary mass (figs. 1-2; col. 1, lines 60-67).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues that Schneller's use of metal reinforcement to the wallboard-encased studs and being fastened with metal screws to the covering wallboard panels creates an acoustic transmission pathway that operates contrary to the aim of the presently recited structure.
Applicant submits that In Schneller's structure, the sound inside an enclosure defined by such wall construction would be louder due to the use of metal as disclosed. As such, if anything, Schneller teaches away from the presently recited structure. Applicant further argues that it is impermissible within the framework of a Section 103 rejection to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant submits that the Examiner has applied hindsight reasoning, using the invention as a roadmap to find the various isolated components, and as such discounting the value of combining the various features as now recited for achieving the above-described benefits unavailable from any of the prior art references.
Applicant argues that the alleged acoustic transmission path being contrary to the aim of the presently recited structure, but does not specify what structure in the claims would preclude Schneller’s metal reinforcement and fasteners. Examiner submits that applicant’s interior wall as described in par. [0001] of the original specification is implemented to enhance desired sound transmission, not eliminate it. Applicant argues that Schneller teaches away from the presently recited structure, but again, there appears to be nothing in the reference of Schneller that teaches away from modifying the interior wall of Schneller et al. to comprise one of a finite number of available dimensions including the spacing of the studs to impart desirable properties comprising strength, durability and/or acoustic properties. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Nonetheless, Examiners submits that Hyatt (3,324,893) is relied on to teach that it is known in the art to have the spacing of studs reduce direct transmission of sound.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights