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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, 14-16, and 19 in the reply filed on February 17, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the group are related and would provide no burden. This is not found persuasive because Applicant has not pointed out any supposed errors in the requirement. Simply having related inventions does not require that they be examined together. The reasons set forth in the Restriction Requirement of 12/16/2025 still apply.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-8, 15, and 16 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.
Regarding claim 1: It is unclear what a “standard prefabricated panel” is. What makes it standard? Additionally, it is unclear what “wherein on one side…fastened to the metal profiles” indicates. It is assumed that it means “a plurality of metal profiles form a gap substantially parallel to the panel plane and a covering is fastened to the metal profiles on a side opposite to the filling layer” and will be examined accordingly. Additionally, it is not clear what “completes structure of the prefabricated panel means. This appears to close the device to any other modifications and limits the invention to what has been claimed above in the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2: It is unclear how the stacked wood panels are placed in a direction transverse to the panel plane. It appears the stacked wood panels are placed in a direction parallel to the panel plane. Does this limitation intend to indicate they are in a direction transverse to the longitudinal length of the plane?
Regarding claim 4: It is unclear how the two covering sheets are placed in a direction transverse to the panel plane. It appears the covering sheets are placed in a direction parallel to the panel plane. Does this limitation intend to indicate they are in a direction transverse to the longitudinal length of the plane?
Regarding claim 15: It is unclear how the two covering sheets are placed in a direction transverse to the panel plane. It appears the covering sheets are placed in a direction parallel to the panel plane. Does this limitation intend to indicate they are in a direction transverse to the longitudinal length of the plane?
Additional claims rejected under 35 USC 112 but not addressed are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and failing to further remedy the issue(s).
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, 3, 4, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valente (WO 2021/144612).
Referring to claim 1: Valente teaches at least one filling layer (item 21) housed in a load-bearing frame (item 15) to close the at least one through opening (between adjacent item 15s); wherein on one side a plurality of metal profiles (item 12) forming a gap substantially parallel to the panel plane and a covering (item 6) opposite to the filling layer are positioned, which is fastened to the metal profiles; and on an other side of the prefabricated panel an isolating mass (item 7) finished with colored plaster (item 25) completes structure of the prefabricated panel.
Referring to claim 3: Valente teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Valente teaches wherein the load-bearing frame defines two mutually distinct through openings extending through the load-bearing frame in a direction transverse to the panel plane (figure 1), wherein, when configured as an outer wall, the prefabricated panel comprises two blind filling layers (figure 1), or one blind filling element and one glass filling element, or two glass filling elements housed in the load-bearing frame so that the filling layers close the through openings, or when the prefabricated panel is configured as a slab, the prefabricated panel comprises two blind filling layers housed in the load-bearing frame so that each filling layer closes a respective through opening.
Referring to claim 4: Valente teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Valente teaches wherein the covering layer is formed by at least two covering sheets (items 26 and 29) fixed to each other and with the profiles, in a direction transverse to the panel plane, wherein the two covering sheets are formed from two different materials.
Referring to claim 15: Valente teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Valente teaches wherein the covering layer is formed by at least two covering sheets fixed to each other and with the profiles, in a direction transverse to the panel plane, wherein the two covering sheets are formed from two different materials, wherein one of the covering sheets is formed of fiber cement panels (item 26), while the other of the covering sheets is formed from plasterboard (item 29).
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, 5, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valente.
Referring to claim 2: Valente teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Valente does not teach wherein the filling layer comprises at least three mutually compacted and stacked wood panels placed in a direction transverse to the panel plane, wherein at least two of the panels are made of phenolic or marine wood forming a thickness between 80 mm and 120 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Valente with multiple panels in order to make transportation and handling of the assembly materials easier. It is easier to handle smaller panels rather than one larger panel. Valente teaches a panel made from compacted wood such as marine wood (paragraph 0060). Choosing a specific material for its suitability to the specific installed location is well known in the art in order to prevent premature degradation. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose to make the filling layers any specific thickness in order to provide strength to the frame as well as insulative properties, both thermal and sound.
Referring to claim 5: Valente teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Valente does not specifically teach wherein the load-bearing frame is formed from concrete or steel or lamellar wood, and is made as a one-piece body. However, Valente teaches the frame is formed of metal (page 7, line 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose a specific metal such as steel in order to balance strength with weight for the specific installation. Additionally, it would have been obvious to make the frame a one piece body in order to reduce the number of separate parts necessary.
Referring to claim 14: Valente teaches all the structure of the instant claim as rejected in the claims above. Valente does not specifically teach a method of making a standard prefabricated panel, made of concrete or steel or wood, provided with a structural system for constructing buildings, wherein said method comprises: producing in series a plurality of load-bearing frames to be stored in a warehouse; producing in series a plurality of connections to be stored in a warehouse; producing in series a plurality of blind or glass filling layers to be stored in a warehouse; arranging in a warehouse a plurality of layers made of different materials to complete the prefabricated panel so as to: position each load-bearing frame in a vertical position; connect each filling layer to each load-bearing frame; then connect a plurality of tubular profiles to each filling layer, respectively; then fix covering layers to metal profiles; fix isolating layers to the respective load-bearing frame and filler layer, reinforce the isolating layer with a plasticized, trimmed and painted mesh. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that it is well known in the art to create components to be stored in a warehouse and then subsequently assembling said components in the warehouse/factory to create the final product as taught by Valente.
Referring to claim 19: Valente teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Additionally, Valente teaches further comprising applying a surface finish (item 28) to the covering layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8,and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635