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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the closed bottom and the mating tongue grooves must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 5-7, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 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.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “optionally” which is not clear if this limitation is part of the invention.
Claims 5, 10 and 18 recite “preferably” which is not clear if these limitations are part of the invention.
Claims 6, 7, 9, 16, 18 and 20 recite “CLT” which is not clear or specific enough regarding the materials used.
Claim 1 recites “and groove formation”, line 5, lacking antecedent basis. Also, “the second side surface”, “the bottom” lack antecedent basis.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Claim 15 recites “a groove and tongue” twice which appears to not be the same component, lacking antecedent basis. Also, “both long side surfaces of the second panels” lack antecedent basis”, as does “the channels on same level”
Claim 20 recites “the connection” lacking antecedent basis.
The claims will be examined as best understood.
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 –
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/00061113 to Keller et al.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Keller discloses a building (fig. 1) having panels, and method of connecting, the panels having two long sides (fig.4: see long vertical sides of each panel), each side having a plurality of tongues (generally where 38 points) and grooves (generally where 24 points) with a mating section, middle, an attachment screw (see screws, fig. 5) is inserted through a predrilled channel (holes that screws are in) such that the tip of the screw penetrates a middle section (fig. 9: see screws into middle section 22). The steps of connecting the panels repeat for a building construction.
Regarding claim 2, there are multiple grooves and tongues along long sides of the panels.
Regarding claim 4, a short positioning channel (upper outer screw hole shown on outer layer,10, fig. 4, which aligns lower inner screw hole when the panels abut) is included.
Regarding claims 11,13, a house is disclosed
Regarding claim 12, the panel is a surface panel, inherently.
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) 3, 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/00061113 to Keller et al.
Regarding claim 3, the use of an adhesive is disclosed [0057] but not specifically for the tongue and groove connections. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Keller by adding adhesive to the tongue and groove connections since adhesive is already used and would create a stronger connection.
Regarding claim 5, Keller discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions. 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 Keller to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as an obvious design choice where larger or smaller panels are required for a particular function.
Regarding claim 8, Keller discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific angular dimensions. 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 Keller to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as an obvious design choice to screw at an angle in order to obtain a tight fit and pull panels toward each other.
Regarding claim 10, Keller discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific angular dimensions. 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 Keller to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as a mere design choice based upon the length of the screw.
Regarding claim 14, a house with roof, floor and wall panels is disclosed (fig. 1) but not specifically all the panels are the same. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Keller by using similar panels as this would reduce costs and speed construction.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, claim 15 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 1. Additionally, the channels are on different levels (see fig. 4, channels (holes) are located at different positions on each tongue and on each groove.
Regarding claim 17, windows and doors are disclosed (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Keller discloses a standard house (fig. 1) but not specifically the rooms as disclosed by the application. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Keller by adding various types of structures within the house, such as a loft, as a mere design choice.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/00061113 to Keller et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2022/0136234 to Schneider et al.
Regarding claims 6, 16, 18, CLT panels are not disclosed for the house (fig. 1). Schneider discloses such panels (abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Keller by using such materials to construct a house as this is widely available and provides good insulation and strength.
Regarding claim 7, 9, the channels are in a perpendicular direction to the long sides (the long sides are vertical and the channels are horizontal) and the channels are in the middle layers, completely (fig. 9: see channel housing screw in middle layer 22, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 6. Additionally, increased flexural strength and shear force connections would have been obvious to one in the art at the time of filing in order to prevent the building from collapsing. The Examiner takes official notice that increasing these properties is well known in order to create a more long lasting structure.
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