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 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(s) 1-4 is/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. The term “loosely fitted” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “loosely fitted” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed 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 unpatentable over Ferguson (US Pat. 10,697,183 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Ferguson discloses a polygonal panel mounting structure, comprising:
a fitting portion (Fig. 3, retention device 52) of a fitting frame (Fig. 3, portion of panel 20 on which the retention device is attached) provided on a one side portion of a polygonal panel (Fig. 1, a plurality of façade panels are shown with the retention means disposed proximate to the mounting wall) is configured to be loosely fitted into a first fitting groove (Fig. 3, channel 45) provided on one of furring strip base frames (Fig. 3, rail 43) that are fixed parallel to each other on a mounting surface of the polygonal panel (Fig. 1, the polygonal panels are rectangular and necessitate parallel mounting means);
and a fitting cap (Fig. 3, pin 51a) provided at a corner facing the one side portion of the polygonal panel is configured to be fitted into a fitting receiver (Fig. 3, channel 45 located below previously cited channel 45) provided on another of the furring strip base frames so as to be swingable (Fig. 3, the panel is swingable about an axis where the retention means 52 meets flange 44).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 Ferguson (US Pat. 10,697,183 B1) in view of Simonsen (US Pat. 10,208.484 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Ferguson discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Simonsen, similarly drawn to a façade panel mounting system, wherein the fitting cap (Fig. 19, protrusion 196) is provided with opposite surface portions projecting parallel to each other in an elastically deformable manner from both side ends of an attachment surface portion that is attached to a corner of the polygonal panel (Fig. 19, protrusion 196 has two distinct portions extending from either side);
and the fitting receiver (Fig. 19, receiver 178) has an insertion portion (Fig. 19, receiver has a leg portion that extends into a groove proximate to arrows 220) to be inserted into a second fitting groove (Fig. 19, area proximate arrows 220) of the furring strip base frame, and the insertion portion is continuously connected to a fitting surface portion designed to be fitted between the opposite surface portions of the fitting cap (The receiver is a single, continuous piece).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polygonal panel mounting structure of Ferguson to include the fitting cap and receiver of Simonsen as the magnetic actuator of Ferguson is a potential point of failure. The simpler snap-design of Simonsen offers improved reliability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-4 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 HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights