DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges Claims 1-3 have been amended, Claims 4-20 have been cancelled and Claims 21-40 have been added.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
The Examiner withdraws the Election Requirement of 11 September 2025 because the claims directed towards Group II have been cancelled. The remaining claims read on the invention of Group I.
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 and 21-27 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.
In claim 21, it refers to “the insert” but the claim depends from Claim 1 that recited both “a first insert” and “a second insert”. It is unclear if this one is of the first or second or different.
In claim 22, it refers to “the insert” but the claim depends from Claim 1 that recited both “a first insert” and “a second insert”. It is unclear if this one is of the first or second or different.
In claim 23, it refers to “the insert” but the claim depends from Claim 1 that recited both “a first insert” and “a second insert”. It is unclear if this one is of the first or second or different.
In claim 24, it refers to “the insert” but the claim depends from Claim 1 that recited both “a first insert” and “a second insert”. It is unclear if this one is of the first or second or different.
In claim 25, it refers to “the insert” but the claim depends from Claim 1 that recited both “a first insert” and “a second insert”. It is unclear if this one is of the first or second or different.
In claim 26, it refers to “the insert” but the claim depends from Claim 1 that recited both “a first insert” and “a second insert”. It is unclear if this one is of the first or second or different.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 21-39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2011/0239578 to Wolf in view of French Patent # 2,561,289 to Guerin.
Regarding claim 1, Wolf teaches in Figures 3 and 5F [Figure 3 annotated below], a panel assembly (Z) [wall panel system (Paragraph 0056)], comprising: a first panel (10) (Paragraph 0028) comprising: a first body (12) (Paragraph 0030) with a first interior volume [in the cast body (Paragraph 0033)] and a first insert (16) [mounting element (Paragraph 0031)] comprising a first planar interior portion (18) [first end (Paragraph 0033)] at least partially embedded (Paragraph 0033) within the first interior volume of the first body (12) and a respective first exterior portion (20) [second end (Paragraph 0033)] extending from the first planar interior portion (18) to a first exterior of the first body (12), wherein the first insert (16) comprises a first standoff (72, Fig 5F) [tab (Paragraph 0045)] and a first fastener hem (21) [protrusion for receiving a fastener (Paragraph 0035)]; wherein the first fastener hem (21) and the first standoff (72) are configured to directly contact a mounting wall (S) [sheathing (Paragraph 0035)] to provide a rainscreen [allowing water to drain (Paragraph 0039) into the air space (A) (Paragraph 0035)] between the first panel (10) and the mounting wall (S); and a second panel (10’) comprising: a second body (12’) with a second interior volume [in the cast body (Paragraph 0033)], and a second insert (16’) comprising a second planar interior portion (18’) at least partially embedded (Paragraph 0033) within the second interior volume of the second body (12’) and a respective second exterior portion (20’) [second end (Paragraph 0033)] extending from the second planar interior portion (18’) to a second exterior of the second body (12’), wherein the second insert (16’) comprises a second standoff (72, Fig 5F) [tab (Paragraph 0045)] and a second fastener hem (21’) [protrusion for receiving a fastener (Paragraph 0035)]; wherein the second fastener hem (21’) and the second standoff (72) are configured to directly contact the mounting wall (S) to provide a rainscreen [allowing water to drain (Paragraph 0039) into the air space (A) (Paragraph 0035)] between the second panel (10’) and the mounting wall (S). Wolf does not teach a plurality of standoffs. However, Guerin teaches in Figure 2, a plurality of standoffs (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Wolf with Guerin and have a reasonable expectation of success because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In the instant case, a plurality of standoffs would allow for balanced contact with the mounting wall and provide drainage space for moisture.
PNG
media_image1.png
762
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Wolf teaches the first and second inserts are formed from a non-corrosive material (Paragraph 0031) that comprises metal or plastic (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 21, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Wolf teaches the insert comprises metal (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 22, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Wolf teaches the insert comprises metal or plastic (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 23, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Wolf teaches the insert comprises plastic (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 24, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Wolf teaches the insert comprises steel (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 25, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Wolf teaches the insert comprises steel and plastic (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 26, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Wolf teaches the insert comprises metal and plastic (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 27, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Wolf teaches in Figure 5F, the metal insert (16) comprises a planar surface.
Regarding claim 28, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Guerin teaches in Figure 2, the standoffs (12) are positioned proximal to at least one side wall of a body of the panel (1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Wolf with Guerin and have a reasonable expectation of success because positioning the standoffs proximal to the side walls of the body would equally balance the panel on the mounting wall.
Regarding claim 29, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Wolf teaches in Figure 3, the first plurality of standoffs (72, Fig 5F) of Guerin would be proximal the second plurality of standoffs (72).
Regarding claim 30, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Guerin teaches in Figure 2, some of the plurality of standoffs (12) are connected to each other [by the concrete of panel] inside a first interior volume of a body of the panel (1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Wolf with Guerin and have a reasonable expectation of success because connecting the standoffs inside the interior volume of the panel would unify the structure.
Regarding claim 31, Wolf teaches in Figures 3 and 5F [Figure 3 annotated above], a panel (10) (Paragraph 0028) comprising: a body (12) (Paragraph 0030) having a front, back, top, bottom, and side walls extending between the front and back [as seen], and an interior volume [in the cast body (Paragraph 0033)] located between the front, back, top, bottom and side walls; an insert (16) [mounting element (Paragraph 0031)] having a planar interior portion (18) [first end (Paragraph 0033)] at least partially embedded (Paragraph 0033) within the first interior volume of the first body (12), and an exterior portion (20) [second end (Paragraph 0033)] extending from the planar interior portion (18) to an exterior of the body (12), wherein the insert (16) comprises a standoff (72, Fig 5F) [tab (Paragraph 0045)] protruding from the body (12), wherein the exterior portion (20) comprises a fastener hem (21) [protrusion for receiving a fastener (Paragraph 0035)] that is spaced apart from the standoff (72); and a back of the fastener hem (21) and a back of the standoff (72) define a co-planar surface; and wherein the fastener hem (21) and the standoff (72) are configured to directly contact a mounting wall (S) [sheathing (Paragraph 0035)] to provide a rainscreen [allowing water to drain (Paragraph 0039) into the air space (A) (Paragraph 0035)] between the panel (10) and the mounting wall (S); wherein the panel (10) is configured to be installed adjacent and substantially coplanar to a second panel (10’). Wolf does not teach a plurality of standoffs. However, Guerin teaches in Figure 2, a plurality of standoffs (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Wolf with Guerin and have a reasonable expectation of success because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In the instant case, a plurality of standoffs would allow for balanced contact with the mounting wall and provide drainage space for moisture.
Regarding claim 32, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Wolf teaches the insert comprises metal (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 33, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Wolf teaches the insert comprises plastic (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 34, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Wolf teaches the insert comprises steel (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 35, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Wolf teaches the insert comprises steel and plastic (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 36, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Wolf teaches the insert comprises metal and plastic (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 37, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Wolf teaches in Figure 5F, the metal insert (16) comprises a planar surface.
Regarding claim 38, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Guerin teaches in Figure 2, at least two standoffs are located in a center of an insert (10) and connected directly to each other inside of an interior volume of a body of the panel (1) [by the concrete of panel]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Wolf with Guerin and have a reasonable expectation of success because connecting the standoffs inside the interior volume of the panel would unify the structure.
Regarding claim 39, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel assembly. Furthermore, Guerin teaches in Figure 2, the standoffs (12) are positioned proximal to side walls of a body of the panel (1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Wolf with Guerin and have a reasonable expectation of success because positioning the standoffs proximal to the side walls of the body would equally balance the panel on the mounting wall.
Claim 40 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2011/0239578 to Wolf in view of French Patent # 2,561,289 to Guerin in further view of German Patent # 2540666 to Ertl.
Regarding claim 40, Wolf in view of Guerin teach a panel. Furthermore, Ertl teaches in Figure 3, at least one standoff (30) of a plurality of standoffs is positioned proximal to a sidewall of a body (13), and wherein the at least one standoff (30) positioned proximal to the sidewall of the body (13) is internally disconnected from at least two standoffs located in a center of the panel (13) [there are three upper fittings 21 and four standoffs 30 thus they are internally disconnected]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wolf with Guerin and Ertl with a reasonable expectation of success because that is what Ertl deemed necessary to support the panel. In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art to use enough standoffs and upper fittings for the proper strength but not to use too many to waste material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm 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 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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635