DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/534,440. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 02/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending.
Claim 10 is cancelled.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 1-4, 9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Cole et al. (U.S. Patent 9,260,864) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cole et al. in view of Budinscak (U.S. Publication 2021/0348388).
Regarding claim 1, Cole et al. disclose an insulated siding sheet comprising:
an integrated insulation material (#104; using the embodiment of figure 3A) comprising a back side (#133), a front side (#131) opposite the back side (see figure 3A), a top horizontal edge having a 45 degree angle (the top edge with angle #136 comprises of 45 degree angle relative to the horizontal; see col. 10, ll. 5-30), a bottom horizontal edge having a 45 degree angle (the bottom edge which comprises of angle #134 that is 45 degrees relative to the horizontal; see col. 10, ll. 5-30), wherein the back side of the integrated insulation material comprises vertical grooves that extend from the top horizontal edge to the bottom horizontal edge (as depicted in figure 4D, the back side of the foam layer #104 can comprise of vertically extending grooves; see col. 11, ll. 25-37); and
a plank siding (#102) attached to the front side of the integrated insulation material (see figure 1B), wherein the plank siding comprises a top horizontal edge and a bottom horizontal edge that both have a cut-away portion to overlap with horizontal edges of adjacent insulated siding sheets (the embodiment of figure 2C depicts the top edge #211’’ and the bottom edge #210’’ of the siding #202 comprise of shiplap cut-away portions that are configure to overlap horizontal edges of adjacent siding sheets),
wherein a front portion of the top horizontal edge of the plank siding is cut-away to form a first cut-away portion and a back portion of the bottom horizontal edge of the plank siding is cut-away to from a second cut-away portion (col. 9, ll. 57-60 disclose that the interlocking features #210/#211 can be provided in both the insulation material #104 and the plank siding #102, where figure 2C depicts such interlocking features #210”/211” can be provided as cutouts in the top and bottom edges of the plank siding),
wherein the cut-away portions have a thickness that is 75% or less than the thickness of the remaining portions of the plank siding (see figure 2C, where the cut-away portions comprise of a thickness that is approximately 50% of the thickness of the remaining portions of the plank siding), and
wherein the first and second cut-away portions are configured to engage and overlap cut-away portions of additional insulating siding sheets (see figure 2C) such that the top and bottom horizontal edges having a 45 degree angle of the insulation material abut 45 degree angled portions of the top and bottom horizontal edges of insulation materials of the additional insulating siding sheets (see figure 2C, where the top and bottom edges of adjacent insulating material and plank siding and interlocking features thereof would engage one another to properly align and secure such panels to one another).
However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Cole et al. as comprising an embodiment which comprises the interlocking elements for the insulating material as depicted in figure 3A and the shiplap interlocking elements of figure 2C for the plank siding used at the same time, col. 9, ll. 57-60 of Cole et al. disclose that the interlocking features #210/#211 can be provided in both the insulation material #104 and the plank siding #102 on a single panel. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided interlocking features for both the insulating material and the plank siding such that the insulating material has a 45 degree edge for engaging the insulating material of other siding sheets and also allow the plank siding to engage the plank siding of adjacent siding sheets in order to provide a substantially planar exterior surface for a building wall.
Furthermore, Cole et al. is considered to meet the 75% or less thickness limitations for the cut-away portions since such shiplap portions are approximately 50% of the material thickness of the plank siding as is commonly done in the art. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Cole et al. as meeting such limitations since the drawings are not explicitly stated as being drawn to scale, Budinscak teaches that such shiplap connections of insulation boards can comprise of a depth which ranges from 25% to 75% of the total board thickness, where such shiplap portions are typically half the thickness of the board. See figure 2A and paragraph 51. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the cut away portions of the plank siding of Cole et al. to be 75% or less of the thickness of the plank siding, as taught in Budinscak, in order to provide a shiplap connection that is thick enough to prevent breaking of the protrusion portion of such a cut-away portion while providing a connection between such elements as needed.
Regarding claim 2, Cole et al. disclose, or in the alternative in view of Budinscak render obvious, the integrated insulation material has a minimum insulation R-value of R-5 (col. 8, ll. 32-58 of Cole et al. disclose R5 and R7 values can be used for such an insulation layer #104).
Regarding claim 3, Cole et al. disclose, or in the alternative in view of Budinscak render obvious, the integrated insulation material is formed from a material selected from the group consisting of a R-5 extruded polystyrene, a R-6.5 polyisocyanurate, a R-5 graphite polystyrene, spray foam, poured foam, and any combination thereof (col. 6, ll. 20-61 of Cole et al. disclose polystyrene or polyisocyanurate foam can be used for layer #104, where col. 8, ll. 32-58 of Cole et al. disclose the R-value can be between R3 and R7, specifically R5, thus meeting such limitations as broadly defined).
Regarding claim 4, Cole et al. disclose, or in the alternative in view of Budinscak render obvious, the integrated insulation material has as thickness within a range of from 1 to 4 inches (col. 8, ll. 32-58 of Cole et al. disclose a thickness of ¾ to 3 inches can be used, which overlaps and thus anticipates the range as defined).
Regarding claim 9, Cole et al. disclose, or in the alternative in view of Budinscak render obvious, the plank siding comprises wood, plastic composite, wood fiber, metal, cement fiber, or any combination (col. 6, ll. 21-36 of Cole et al. disclose fiber cement material can be used for siding #102).
Regarding claim 11, Cole et al. disclose, or in the alternative in view of Budinscak render obvious, an insulating siding sheet system comprising two or more insulated siding sheets according to claim 1 (figures 1B and 2C of Cole et al. depicts two sheets #100 as explained above in the rejection of claim 1 can be used with one another), wherein the insulated siding sheets are attached to each other with a lapped configuration (see figures 1B and 2C of Cole et al.).
Regarding claim 12, Cole et al. disclose, or in the alternative in view of Budinscak render obvious, the lapped configuration comprises overlapping cut-away portions of the plank siding of adjacent insulated siding sheets (see figure 2C of Cole et al., where the cut-away portions #210’’/211’’ of adjacent plank siding would engage one another).
Regarding claim 13, Cole et al. disclose, or in the alternative in view of Budinscak render obvious, the bottom horizontal edge of the integrated insulated material of a first insulated siding sheet engages and mates onto the top horizontal edge of the integrated insulated material of a second insulated siding sheet (see figure 1B of Cole et al., where the angled surfaces #135 and #131 of adjacent sheets #104, as depicted in figure 3A, would engage one another to stack panels upon one another).
Regarding claim 14, Cole et al. disclose, or in the alternative in view of Budinscak render obvious, a building comprising the insulated siding sheet system according to claim 11 formed over at least a portion of one side of the building (col. 2, ll. 55-67 and col. 8, ll. 21-31 of Cole et al. disclose such a system of claim 11 is for attaching to an exterior wall of a building and such a structure is formed by such an installation).
Regarding claim 15, Cole et al. disclose, or in the alternative in view of Budinscak render obvious, the insulated siding sheet system is formed over each side of the building (col. 15, ll. 59-65 of Cole et al. disclose the composite panels #100 are to be installed and provide the building envelope with penetration resistance yet allow breathing and water drainage away from the interior and thus inherently teaches providing such an assembly on all walls of a building envelope to envelop the building). However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Cole et al. as installing the panels on all of the sides of the building, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have installed the wall panel system of Cole et al. on all of the walls of the building in order to provide the insulation and water drainage properties on all sides of the building, to maintain the aesthetics around the entire building structure, and also since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 16, Cole et al. disclose, or in the alternative in view of Budinscak render obvious, the building is a residential building (Applicant does not further define the structure of the building other than that it is used for residential purposes. One could use the building of Cole et al. for residential purposes and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Cole et al. as meeting such limitations, it would have been obvious to have constructed the building of Cole et al. for residential purposes in order to allow such insulating exterior siding panels to be used for insulating residential properties where users reside, where such residential properties would also benefit from the insulation and water drainage from such a system of Cole et al.).
Regarding claim 18, Cole et al. disclose, or in the alternative in view of Budinscak render obvious, a starter strip positioned at the bottom of each side of the building, wherein the starter strip comprises a channel that receives insulated siding sheets extending down toward a bottom of the sides of the building (as depicted in figure 3J of Cole et al., a starter strip is provided with an angle #166 that forms a channel that is configured to receive the next vertically adjacent insulated siding sheet therein and thus starts construction of such a side of the building).
Regarding claim 19, Cole et al. disclose, or in the alternative in view of Budinscak render obvious, a method of retrofitting an insulated siding sheet system onto a building, the method comprising attaching the insulated siding sheet system according to claim 11 onto one or more sides of a building (col. 2, ll. 55-67 and col. 8, ll. 21-31 of Cole et al. disclose such a system of claim 11 is for attaching to an exterior wall of a building and such a structure is formed by such an installation).
Regarding claim 20, Cole et al. disclose, or in the alternative in view of Budinscak render obvious, wherein attaching the insulated siding sheet system onto one or more sides of the building comprises laminating the integrated insulation material onto the one or more sides of the building (col. 7, ll. 46-67 of Cole et al. disclose lamination between layers #102 and #104 can be through mechanical means or adhesive means, where col. 12, ll. 15-37 disclose use of fasteners to attach the corner trim #400, and thus the panels #100 to the building and thus laminate the panels #100 to the building.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al. in view of Joshi et al. (U.S. Patent 11,035,127), or in the alternative in view of Joshi et al. and Budinscak.
Regarding claim 5, Cole et al. disclose, or in the alternative in view of Budinscak render obvious, the claimed invention except specifically for the vertical grooves have a depth of ¼ inch or less. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Joshi et al., that the drainage channels #2 in the back surface of an exterior panel #3 can be constructed to a depth between 0.023 inches and 0.2 inches. See col. 5, ll. 8-23. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the vertical grooves of the panels of Cole et al. to have a depth less than 1/4, as taught in Joshi et al., in order to provide appropriate drainage to the panel without sacrificing the strength of the panel.
Regarding claim 6, Cole et al. in view of Joshi et al., or in the alternative in view of Joshi et al. and Budinscak, render obvious the vertical grooves have a width within a range of from 1/8 to ¼ inch (col. 5, ll. 8-23 of Joshi et al. disclose the width of such drainage grooves can be between 0.019 and 3 inches, which overlaps the range as defined and it would have been obvious to have constructed the width of the grooves of the panel of Cole et al. to fall within the range as defined, as taught in Joshi et al., in order to provide appropriate drainage to the panel without sacrificing the strength of the panel.).
Regarding claim 7, Cole et al. in view of Joshi et al., or in the alternative in view of Joshi et al. and Budinscak, render obvious the vertical grooves are each spaced apart horizontally by at least ½ inch (Joshi et al. teach a spacing #6 between vertical grooves can be approximately 0.5 inches, see col. 14, ll. 1-16, where it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the grooves of Cole et al. to be spaced by at least 0.5 inches, as taught in Joshi et al., in order to provide appropriate drainage and strength to the panels and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).).
Regarding claim 8, Cole et al. in view of Joshi et al., or in the alternative in view of Joshi et al. and Budinscak, render obvious the vertical grooves have a rounded shape (Col. 11, ll. 25-59 of Cole et al. disclose such channels can comprise of any design or pattern, where Joshi et al. disclose the drainage channels can comprise of rounded, wave-like channels and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used rounded shapes for the grooves of Cole et al., in order to make construction of such panels easier and to allow for easier flow of water down and through such channels and also since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is 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 drainage groove was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al. in view of Bragg (U.S. Patent 8,938,927) and Santarossa et al. (U.S. Patent 10,590,659), or in the alternative in view of Bragg, Santarossa et al., and Budinscak.
Regarding claim 17, Col et al. disclose, or in the alternative in view of Budinscak render obvious, the claimed invention except specifically for the building comprising of at least one door and window or a metal trim around such a door(s) and window(s) that receives the insulating siding sheets extending around the door(s) and window(s). However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Bragg, that such insulated siding sheet systems incorporate various flashings, trim pieces, sealants, and other components where a wall terminates, such as at corners and around doors and windows (see col. 1, ll. 45-58), where trim pieces are known to be constructed from metal or plastic materials (see col. 7, ll. 57-67). Furthermore, Santarossa et al. disclose such trim moldings #41 around the windows and doors can comprise of L-shaped channels in order to cover an end of the insulation siding panels #1 and thus form a decorative termination area around the window and door areas. See figures 16 and 17. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided doors and windows within the building of Cole et al. in order to allow for the ingress and egress of people and provide better aesthetics to the building. It would have also been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used trim pieces with channels in order to receive and cover the ends of the insulated siding sheets of Cole et al. around the window and door areas, as taught in Bragg and Santarossa et al., in order to provide more aesthetic transitions between such elements of the building wall. It would have finally been obvious to have constructed such trim pieces of the prior art out of metal, as taught in Bragg, since plastic and metal are known and commonly interchangeable materials for such trim pieces and using either of such materials would have yielded the predictable result of providing a trim piece for exterior use and also 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 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 have been considered but are moot because Applicant’s amendments to the claims required the use of a different interpretation and rejection using the prior art of record to meet such newly added limitations.
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 THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 D 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635