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
Claims 13 and 18-20 are withdrawn by original presentation from the previous office action.
New claims 25 and 28-31 and amended claim 5 are withdrawn by original presentation.
Claims 25 and 28 recite the rigid layer being a fiber reinforced plastic as opposed to previously examined claim 8 which claims this layer as being of different material, not plastic.
Claims 5 and 29-31 are withdrawn because the corrugated surface is different than that previously examined, as recited in originally examined claim 5, of 5/13/26, as being of the sheathing layer.
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejection of the previous action is obviated by the applicant’s terminal disclaimer dated 5/13/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 14, 23, 24, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 24 claim no adhesives which are not found in the specification and this appears to be a negative limitation not supported in the specification. The specification discloses the use of adhesives but not the opposite, no adhesives, for the layers.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 26 recites “consisting” of the parts claimed in claim 1. This appears to be new matter as the specification and figures do not support this limitation since various components are used in combination together throughout the specification and figures.
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, 2, 4, 8, 14, 23, 24, 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2016/0069067 to Ciuperca in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,373,674 to Winter.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 24, and 26, as best understood, Ciuperca discloses an insulated building panel having a foam insulation layer (fig. 1: 12), a single rigid sheathing material (48) layer and a weather resistant barrier (44, 52, [0071]) layer, the insulation layer is a foam of polyurethane [0063] and self-adhered to the sheathing [0071]. However, the panel does not include a gap with drainage plane of corrugations. Winter discloses a building panel (title) having a foam insulation layer (fig. 7: 16) adhered to a corrugated layer (13, and fig. 5: 24a) and an exterior skin (fig. 7: see top layer, not numbered). It should be noted that a corrugated panel may function as having drainage plane with a gap since there is an air gap between corrugations and they allow fluid to pass. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ciuperca by substituting such a panel layer for the rigid sheathing to improve rigidity and strength in the wall panel.
Regarding claim 2, the insulation layer is a foam of polyurethane [0063] and self-adhered to the sheathing [0071]. Regarding R values, Ciuperca discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific R values. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed values, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ciuperca to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims for applications requiring more or less insulation.
Regarding claim 8, magnesium oxide is disclosed [0073].
Regarding claim 14, no stud is used in the panel (the panel as structurally claimed being 12, 48, 44, 52).
Regarding claims 23, 27, Ciuperca discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions of air permeance and water vapor permeance. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ciuperca to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims for particular functions which require more or less permeance depending upon the location and weather for which the building must protect from.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2016/0069067 to Ciuperca in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,373,674 to Winter further in view of U.S. Application No. US 2009/0223144 to Leahy.
Regarding claim 11, Ciuperca in view of Winter does not disclose a seamless corner with double rail mating alignment component. Leahy discloses such a structure in panels ([0016], [0017]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ciuperca by adding such a structure as disclosed by Leahy in order for a more secure structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 9/2/26 have been fully considered but they are moot under new grounds of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendment. Additionally, the Applicant admits to combining embodiments from various figures. As stated in the action above, non-elected embodiments have been withdrawn by original presentation. The Applicant also claims support for the recent claim amendments but not for any negative limitations which have been recently added. The new claims are addressed in the action above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Basil Katcheves whose telephone number is (571)272-6846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm 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 Glessner can be reached on (571)272-6754. 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.
/BASIL S KATCHEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights