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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 2/20/26. Accordingly the application has been amended.
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) 1-8,17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi (20200071935) in view of Moras (6279284).
Claim 1. Joshi discloses a vented weather resistant barrier panel, comprising:
a panel (such as panel 272-figure 10, among other disclosed embodiments) having a first and a second side, wherein the panel is formed with a plurality of channels (87, where it is disclose that channel 87 can be the same as any of the discussed drainage channels including 2,2d,2e,2f,2g,2h,2i,2j,2k,2l or 1a,3,3d-j,5,7,9, paragraph 0147) on the first side of the panel;
a non-perforated barrier (such as 86) coupled to the first side of the panel and extending across the plurality of channels to form ventilation pathways (paragraph 014-0149); wherein,
in an installed position on framing members of a structure, the first side of the panel faces an exterior of a structure (paragraph 0148) and the second side faces an interior of the structure;
wherein the panel is configured for installation on an exterior side of the framing members (see figure 10 and noted throughout the disclosure);
wherein, when installed, the barrier faces away from the structure to prevent or reduce exterior moisture from entering the structures.
Joshi does not disclose a non-perforated barrier coupled to the first side of the panel that comprises a foil layer and a carrier layer; wherein, the carrier layer has a first side and a second side; wherein, the foil layer has a first side and a second side; wherein, the second side of the foil layer is coupled to the first side of the carrier layer, and wherein, the second side of the carrier layer is coupled to the first side of the panel. However Joshi does disclose the use of a weather resistant layer or barrier (such as 74) and that the drainage channel can eliminate the need for furring strips (paragraph 00148) and further Joshi does not expressly disclose wherein the panel and the barrier are pre-assembled as a single unit prior to installing the vented weather resistant barrier panel on the structure.
Moras discloses a vented weather resistant barrier panel having a panel (20) having a first and a second side and a non-perforated barrier (24) coupled to a first side where the barrier comprises a foil layer and a carrier layer (col. 3, lines 65-68), wherein the carrier layer has a first side and a second side and the foil layer has a first side and a second side and the second side of the foil layer is coupled to the first side of the carrier layer and the second side of the carrier layer is coupled to the first side of the panel (col. 3, line 65-col. 4, line 9, where the foil with the visual markings is visible and therefore facing out), and further having ventilation channels via strapping 30 and Moras further discloses the weather resistant barrier panel is preassembled as a single unit prior to installing the barrier panel on the structure.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify or substitute the barrier of Joshi to be or include the non-perforated barrier layer having a foil layer and a carrier layer, as taught by Moras, on the first side of the panel of Joshi extending across the plurality of channels, and further to modify the panel and barrier of Joshi to be pre assembled as a single unit prior to installing the vented weather resistant barrier panel on the structure to achieve the predictable result of a weather resistant panel that improves construction by eliminating the need for furring strips, without compromising the drainage, ventilation and or moisture management between the building article and the wall covering and increase consistency and ease of installation due to simplification of assembly of the prefabricated/pre-assembled barrier panel.
It should be noted that claim limitation ”the panel and the barrier are pre-assembled as a single unit prior to installing the vented weather resistant barrier panel on the structure” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed.Cir.1985). In the instant case the resulting construction of Joshi in view of Moras is the same regardless of whether the barrier panel is preassembled or assembled on-site.
Claim 2. The vented weather resistant barrier panel of claim 1, wherein the plurality of channels is formed along a longitudinal length of the panel and each of the plurality of channels is substantially parallel to each other (Joshi-figure 10 as well as noted throughout the disclosure and figures).
Claims 3-5. Joshi discloses the vented weather resistant barrier panel of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the panel comprises a structural wood-based panel, or wherein the structural wood-based panel is plywood, or wherein the structural wood-based panel is oriented strand board. Instead Joshi discloses that the panel is a fiber cement based panel.
Moras disclose that it is known to have exterior sheathing panels that are made of plywood, particle board or fibreboard (col. 2, lines 60-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to pursue known design options and modify the material of the panel of Joshi to be a structural wood-based panel of plywood or oriented strand board, as taught by Moras, 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. In the instant case it would have been obvious for at least the reason of optimizing insulation value, rigidity, weight (as taught by Moras) and cost of manufacture/building.
Claim 6. Joshi discloses the vented weather resistant barrier panel of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of channels has a depth in the range of 30-50 % of a thickness of the panel. Joshi discloses that the depth of the channel is optimized to prevent excessive weakening of the flexural strength of the panel (paragraph 0080 and 0142). Further Joshi discloses an embodiment 172 in figures 9, where the depth of the channel can be 30% so as not to affect the structural integrity of the article (paragraph 0142). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the depth of the channels of Joshi in the embodiment 272-figure 10 to be 30%, and/or in the range of 30-50% of a thickness of the panel where Joshi disclose optimizing the depth of the panel as a percentage or range of percentages of the thickness of the panel, to achieve the predictable result of a panel that allows for ventilation and drainage and reduces or prevents excessive weaking of the flexural strength and structural integrity of the article.
Claim 7. Joshi discloses the vented weather resistant barrier panel of claim 6, but does not expressly disclose wherein the thickness of the panel is in the range of 1.0 - 0.375 inches. However Joshi does disclose that the depth of the channels can be between 0.023 -0.2 inches and that the depth can be a percentage of the thickness of the panel (paragraph 0142). Further, Moras discloses it is known to have building panels of .5-.75 inches (col. 3, lines 44). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options, as disclosed by Joshi and Moras, and modify the thickness of the panel 172 of Joshi to be int eh range of 1-.375 inches to achieve the predictable result of a panel that has structural integrity for the intended purpose, and optimizes strength, weight, cost and ease of installation (where the cost and weight result effective variables directly linked the thickness of the panel).
Claim 8. Joshi discloses the vented weather resistant barrier panel of claim 1, wherein the plurality of channels is formed along a longitudinal length of the panel and each of the plurality of channels is substantially parallel to each other (Joshi-figure 10 as well as noted throughout the disclosure and figures).
Joshi does not expressly disclose the panel is plywood or oriented strand board; or
wherein at least one of the plurality of channels has a depth in the range of 30-50 % of a thickness of the panel; and wherein the thickness of the panel is in the range of 1.0 - 0.375 inches.
Moras disclose that it is known to have exterior sheathing panels that are made of plywood, particle board or fibreboard (col. 2, lines 60-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to pursue known design options and modify the material of the panel of Joshi to be a structural wood-based panel of plywood or oriented strand board, as taught by Moras, 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. In the instant case it would have been obvious for at least the reason of optimizing insulation value, rigidity, weight (as taught by Moras) and cost of manufacture/building.
Joshi does disclose that the thickness of the panel is optimized to prevent excessive weakening of the flexural strength of the panel (paragraph 0080 and 0142). Further Joshi discloses an embodiment 172 in figures 9, where the depth of the channel can be 30% so as not to affect the structural integrity of the article (paragraph 0142). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the depth of the channels of Joshi in the embodiment 272-figure 10 to be 30%, and/or in the range of 30-50% of a thickness of the panel where Joshi disclose optimizing the depth of the panel as a percentage or range of percentages of the thickness of the panel, to achieve the predictable result of a panel that allows for ventilation and drainage and reduces or prevents excessive weaking of the flexural strength and structural integrity of the article.
Further Joshi does disclose that the depth of the channels can be between 0.023 -0.2 inches and that the depth can be a percentage of the thickness of the panel (paragraph 0142). Further, Moras discloses it is known to have building panels of .5-.75 inches (col. 3, lines 44). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options, as disclosed by Joshi and Moras, and modify the thickness of the panel 172 of Joshi to be int eh range of 1-.375 inches to achieve the predictable result of a panel that has structural integrity for the intended purpose, and optimizes strength, weight, cost and ease of installation (where the cost and weight result effective variables directly linked the thickness of the panel).
Claims 17,19. Joshi discloses a vented weather resistant barrier panel for use in residential construction comprising:
a panel (such as panel 272-figure10, among other disclosed embodiments) formed with a plurality of channels (87, where it is disclose that channel 87 can be the same as any of the discussed drainage channels including 2,2d,2e,2f,2g,2h,2i,2j,2k,2l or 1a,3,3d-j,5,7,9, paragraph 0147) on one side running along a dimension of the panel;
a barrier (86; see figure 10 as noted above) coupled over the plurality of channels of the panel to form a plurality of ventilation pathways (see figure 10);
wherein the panel is configured for installation on an exterior side of a structure such that the barrier faces away from the structure to prevent or reduce exterior moisture from entering the structures. Joshi does not expressly disclose the panel having a thickness of at least 0.25 inches; or
that the barrier coupled over the plurality of channels of the panel to form a plurality of ventilation pathways; wherein, the barrier layer comprises a foil layer and a carrier layer; wherein, the carrier layer has a first side and a second side; wherein, the foil layer has a first side and a second side; wherein, the second side of the foil layer is coupled to the first side of the carrier layer, and wherein, the second side of the carrier layer is coupled to the side of the panel having the plurality of channels; or
wherein the panel and the barrier are pre-assembled as a single unit prior to installing the panel on the structure.
Moras discloses a vented weather resistant barrier panel having a panel (20) having a first and a second side and a non-perforated barrier (24) coupled to a first side where the barrier comprises a foil layer and a carrier layer (col. 3, lines 65-68), wherein the carrier layer has a first side and a second side and the foil layer has a first side and a second side and the second side of the foil layer is coupled to the first side of the carrier layer and the second side of the carrier layer is coupled to the first side of the panel (col. 3, line 65-col. 4, line 9, where the foil with the visual markings is visible and therefore facing out), and further having ventilation channels via strapping 30 and Moras further discloses the weather resistant barrier panel is preassembled as a single unit prior to installing the barrier panel on the structure.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify or substitute the barrier layer of Joshi to be pre-assembled as a single unit prior to installing the panel on the structure and to include the non-perforated barrier layer having a foil layer and a carrier layer, as taught by Moras, on the side of the panel having the channels of Joshi, thus coupled over the plurality of channels, to achieve the predictable result of a weather resistant panel that improves construction by eliminating the need for furring strips, without compromising the drainage, ventilation and or moisture management between the building article and the wall covering and to increase consistency and ease of installation due to simplification of assembly of the prefabricated/pre-assembled barrier pane.
Joshi does disclose that the depth of the channels can be between 0.023 -0.2 inches and that the depth can be a percentage of the thickness of the panel (paragraph 0142). Further, Moras discloses it is known to have building panels of .5-.75 inches (col. 3, lines 44). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options, as disclosed by Joshi and Moras, and modify the thickness of the panel 172 of Joshi to be at least 0.25 inches, or in the range of 1.0-0.375 inches (claim 19), to achieve the predictable result of a panel that has structural integrity for the intended purpose, and optimizes strength, weight, cost and ease of installation (where the cost and weight result effective variables directly linked the thickness of the panel).
It should be noted that claim limitation ”the panel and the barrier are pre-assembled as a single unit prior to installing the vented weather resistant barrier panel on the structure” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed.Cir.1985). In the instant case the resulting construction of Joshi in view of Moras is the same regardless of whether the barrier panel is preassembled or assembled on-site.
Claim 18. Joshi discloses the vented weather resistant barrier panel of Claim 17, but does not disclose wherein the panel comprises a structural wood-based panel.
Instead Joshi discloses that the panel is a fiber cement based panel.
Moras disclose that it is known to have exterior sheathing panels that are made of plywood, particle board or fibreboard (col. 2, lines 60-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to pursue known design options and modify the material of the panel of Joshi to be a structural wood-based panel of plywood or oriented strand board, as taught by Moras, 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. In the instant case it would have been obvious for at least the reason of optimizing insulation value, rigidity, weight (as taught by Moras) and cost of manufacture/building.
Claim 20. Joshi in view of Moras discloses the vented weather resistant barrier panel of Claim 19, wherein a depth of at least one of the plurality of channels is in the range of 30 - 50 % of a thickness of the panel.
Joshi discloses that the depth of the channel is optimized to prevent excessive weakening of the flexural strength of the panel (paragraph 0080 and 0142). Further Joshi discloses an embodiment 172 in figures 9, where the depth of the channel can be 30% so as not to affect the structural integrity of the article (paragraph 0142). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the depth of the channels of Joshi in the embodiment 272-figure 10 to be 30%, and/or in the range of 30-50% of a thickness of the panel where Joshi disclose optimizing the depth of the panel as a percentage or range of percentages of the thickness of the panel, to achieve the predictable result of a panel that allows for ventilation and drainage and reduces or prevents excessive weaking of the flexural strength and structural integrity of the article.
Claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi (20200071935) in view of Moras (6279284) and further in view of Slavik (4098044).
Claim 9. Joshi discloses a method for ventilating a structure comprising the steps of:
obtaining and attaching a plurality of vented weather resistant barrier panels (such as panel 272-figure10, among other disclosed embodiments) to an exterior side of a plurality of studs (22) of a wall of a structure, (where Joshi discloses including a barrier layer, such as 86, coupled to the first side of the panel and extending across the plurality of channels to form ventilation pathways (paragraph 014-0149)), such that the barrier layer of each panel faces away from the structure to prevent or reduce exterior moisture from entering the structure (as noted at least in figure 10 and throughout the disclosure);
wherein each panel comprises a structural panel (such as panel 272 figure 10, among other disclosed embodiments) having a first and a second side, wherein a plurality of channels (87, where it is disclose that channel 87 can be the same as any of the discussed drainage channels including 2,2d,2e,2f,2g,2h,2i,2j,2k,2l or 1a,3,3d-j,5,7,9, paragraph 0147) is formed on the first side of the structural panel wherein each of the pluralities of channels comprise a first end and a second end,
and further including a barrier layer (such as 86) coupled to the first side of the structural panel and extending across the plurality of channels to form ventilation pathways (as noted above and seen in Joshi);
installing exterior wall covering material (88 or 98 or 99; paragraphs 0151-0153) over each of the plurality of vented weather resistant barrier panels.
Joshi does not expressly disclose the barrier layer comprising a foil layer and a carrier layer, wherein the foil layer has a first side and a second side and the carrier layer has a first side and a second side, wherein the second side of the foil layer is coupled to the first side of the carrier layer, and wherein the second side of the carrier layer of the barrier is coupled to the first side of the panel and the barrier extends across the plurality of channels to form ventilation pathways; or wherein the structural panel and the barrier layer or a pre-assembled barrier panel assembled together as a single unit prior to installing the vented weather resistant barrier panels on the structure; or
wherein either the first end or the second end of at least one of the plurality of channels is in fluid communication with either the exterior of the structure or an attic cavity of the structure.
Moras discloses a pre-assembled vented weather resistant barrier panel having a structural panel (20) having a first and a second side and a non-perforated barrier (24) coupled to a first side where the barrier comprises a foil layer and a carrier layer (col. 3, lines 65-68), wherein the carrier layer has a first side and a second side and the foil layer has a first side and a second side and the second side of the foil layer is coupled to the first side of the carrier layer and the second side of the carrier layer is coupled to the first side of the panel (col. 3, line 65-col. 4, line 9, where the foil with the visual markings is visible and therefore facing out), and further having ventilation channels via strapping 30 and wherein the structural panel and the barrier layer are assembled together as a single unit prior to installing the vented weather resistant barrier panels on the structure.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify or substitute the pre structural panel and barrier layer of Joshi to have or include the non-perforated barrier layer having a foil layer and a carrier layer, as taught by Moras, on the first side of the panel of Joshi, whereby the barrier extends across the plurality of channels to form ventilation pathways and further to modify the panel and barrier of Joshi to be pre assembled as a single unit prior to installing the vented weather resistant barrier panel on the structure to achieve the predictable result of a weather resistant panel that improves construction by eliminating the need for furring strips, without comprising the drainage, ventilation and or moisture management between the building article and the wall covering, whereby upon modification to a preassembled unit, the step of attaching includes attaching the panels such that the barrier layer of each panel faces way form the structure increasing the ease and speed of construction assembly.
Joshi does disclose that the drainage channels face toward an exterior of the building and are for drainage and ventilation. Slavik discloses a panel having channels for ventilation where the channels are in fluid communication with either the exterior of the structure or an attic cavity of the structure to allow for proper venting of the wall. Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the structure of Joshi in view of Moras as above, to have the channels in fluid communication with either the exterior of the structure or an attic cavity of the structure to allow for proper venting of the wall as taught by Slavik to accommodate drainage and ventilation out of the interior of the wall structure and building.
Claim 10. The method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of channels is formed along a longitudinal length of the structural panel and each of the plurality of channels are substantially parallel to each other (Joshi-figure 10 as well as noted throughout the disclosure and figures).
Claim 11. The method of claim 9, wherein, when the plurality of vented weather resistant barrier panels is in the installed position, the plurality of channels of at least one vented weather resistant barrier panel is substantially parallel to the plurality of studs (Joshi-figure 10 as well as noted throughout the disclosure and figures).
Claims 12-13. Joshi discloses the method of claim 9, but does not expressly disclose wherein the structural panel comprises a structural wood-based panel wherein the structural wood-based panel is plywood or oriented strand board.
Instead Joshi discloses that the panel is a fiber cement based panel.
Moras disclose that it is known to have exterior sheathing panels that are made of plywood, particle board or fibreboard (col. 2, lines 60-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to pursue known design options and modify the material of the panel of Joshi to be a structural wood-based panel of plywood or oriented strand board, as taught by Moras, 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. In the instant case it would have been obvious for at least the reason of optimizing insulation value, rigidity, weight (as taught by Moras) and cost of manufacture/building.
Claim 14. Joshi discloses the method of claim 9, but does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of channels has a depth in the range of 30 - 50 % of a thickness of the structural panel.
Joshi discloses that the depth of the channel is optimized to prevent excessive weakening of the flexural strength of the panel (paragraph 0080 and 0142). Further Joshi discloses an embodiment 172 in figures 9, where the depth of the channel can be 30% so as not to affect the structural integrity of the article (paragraph 0142). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the depth of the channels of Joshi in the embodiment 272-figure 10 to be 30%, and/or in the range of 30-50% of a thickness of the structural panel where Joshi disclose optimizing the depth of the panel as a percentage or range of percentages of the thickness of the panel, to achieve the predictable result of a panel that allows for ventilation and drainage and reduces or prevents excessive weaking of the flexural strength and structural integrity of the article.
Claim 15. Joshi discloses the method of claim 14, but does not expressly disclose wherein the thickness of the structural panel is in the range of 1.0 - 0.375 inches.
However Joshi does disclose that the depth of the channels can be between 0.023 -0.2 inches and that the depth can be a percentage of the thickness of the panel (paragraph 0142). Further, Moras discloses it is known to have building panels of .5-.75 inches (col. 3, lines 44). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options, as disclosed by Joshi and Moras, and modify the thickness of the panel 172 of Joshi to be int eh range of 1-.375 inches to achieve the predictable result of a panel that has structural integrity for the intended purpose, and optimizes strength, weight, cost and ease of installation (where the cost and weight result effective variables directly linked the thickness of the panel).
Claim 16. Joshi discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of channels is formed along a longitudinal length of the structural panel and each of the plurality of channels are substantially parallel to each other (Joshi-figure 10 as well as noted throughout the disclosure and figures);
wherein, when the plurality of vented weather resistant barrier panels is in the installed position, the plurality of channels of at least one vented weather resistant barrier panel is substantially parallel to the plurality of studs (Joshi-figure 10 as well as noted throughout the disclosure and figures).
Joshi does not expressly disclose wherein the structural panel is plywood or oriented strand board; or
wherein at least one of the plurality of channels has a depth in the range of 30 - 50 % of a thickness of the panel; and
wherein the thickness of the panel is in the range of 1.0 - 0.375 inches.
Instead Joshi discloses that the panel is a fiber cement based panel.
Moras disclose that it is known to have exterior sheathing panels that are made of plywood, particle board or fibreboard (col. 2, lines 60-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to pursue known design options and modify the material of the panel of Joshi to be a structural wood-based panel of plywood or oriented strand board, as taught by Moras, 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. In the instant case it would have been obvious for at least the reason of optimizing insulation value, rigidity, weight (as taught by Moras) and cost of manufacture/building.
Joshi does disclose that the depth of the channel is optimized to prevent excessive weakening of the flexural strength of the panel (paragraph 0080 and 0142). Further Joshi discloses an embodiment 172 in figures 9, where the depth of the channel can be 30% so as not to affect the structural integrity of the article (paragraph 0142). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the depth of the channels of Joshi in the embodiment 272-figure 10 to be 30%, and/or in the range of 30-50% of a thickness of the panel where Joshi disclose optimizing the depth of the panel as a percentage or range of percentages of the thickness of the panel, to achieve the predictable result of a panel that allows for ventilation and drainage and reduces or prevents excessive weaking of the flexural strength and structural integrity of the article.
Further Joshi does disclose that the depth of the channels can be between 0.023 -0.2 inches and that the depth can be a percentage of the thickness of the panel (paragraph 0142). Further, Moras discloses it is known to have building panels of .5-.75 inches (col. 3, lines 44). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options, as disclosed by Joshi and Moras, and modify the thickness of the panel 172 of Joshi to be int eh range of 1-.375 inches to achieve the predictable result of a panel that has structural integrity for the intended purpose, and optimizes strength, weight, cost and ease of installation (where the cost and weight result effective variables directly linked the thickness of the panel).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments appear to be drawn to newly added claim limitations not previously presented and considered. Further applicant suggests that the feature of the panel formed with a plurality of channels and the barrier are pre-assembled as single unit prior to installing, the barrier faces away from the structure. It is noted that Moras discloses a pre-assembled panel with a barrier and Joshi discloses the panel with barrier faces away from the structure.
Applicants arguments regarding Moras at pages 8-9 are not persuasive as the office action does not rely on Moras for teaching the barrier faces away from the structure to prevent or reduce exterior moisture from entering the structure. Rather Joshi is relied upon for this feature.
Further applicant’s arguments at pages 9-10 that Joshi teaches away from a pre-assembled panel is not persuasive. Joshi merely discloses an alternative process and does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage a pre-assembled unit. See MPEP 2141.02
Applicant’s arguments regarding Slavik at page 9 are not persuasive as the reference is not relied upon for teaching these features.
Applicant’s arguments that Moras in incompatible with the claimed exterior installation is not persuasive as the office does not suggest the panel of Moras be installed with an exterior installation. Rather the office suggests modify the barrier layer of Joshi, which is an exterior installation, with the layers as taught by Moras. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly applicant’s arguments are not persuasive to overcome the rejections as presented above.
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 JESSICA LAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-8228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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.
JESSICA L. LAUX
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JESSICA L LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights