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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits in application 18/600,338, filed 3/8/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/11/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 166(see para. [0037] – [0039]). 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in para. [0021], line 6, “ow” should be “of”; in para. [0035], line 13, “late” should be “plate” and in line 14, “IN” should be “In”; and in para. [0037], line 7, “sections” should be “section”, and in line 8, “are” should be “is; in para.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 11, “plated” should be “plate”; and in claim 11, line 2, “mounted the” should be “mounted to the”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colasanto(5,479,749; cited on PTO 892).
Regarding claism 1 and 12, Colasanto discloses a prefabricated exterior wall panel and method of fabricating the panel(see Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a metal stud frame formed(see Figs. 2 and 3) including a bottom track(100’, see Fig. 2), a top plate(76/78, see Figs. 2 and 3) and vertically extending studs(61, see Figs. 2 and 3) extending therebetween;
an exterior sheathing(92, 95, see Fig. 3) connected to the metal stud frame, wherein the exterior sheathing is formed from panels of connected sheathing and include an insulation layer, a weather proofing layer(the layers provide at least some insulating and weatherproofing and meets the claim limitation), side edges, a top edge and an exterior surface, and fasteners(94), the frame and sheathing are the same size so any excess material is considered to inherently be removed(while the sheathing does not specifically have waterproofing and insulating layer, the use of weatherproofing and insulating in/on exterior sheathing is considered well known in the construction art and obvious to a skilled artisan to have provided enabling the sheathing capable of protecting the wall from damage from outside weather), the sheathing is the same size as the frame(see Figs.) and therefore is considered to be formed of panels sized for this result or the panels cut to the appropriate size;
a sealant(93, 96, see Fig. 3) applied between the panels of sheathing to form a continuous air- and water-barrier on the exterior surface of the exterior sheathing;
a pour stop(84/90, see Fig. 3) connected to the top plate(76/78) and having a vertical leg extending upward from the top plate and inward from an interior surface of the exterior sheathing when the prefabricated exterior wall panel is oriented vertically; and
at least one reinforcement rod(8) connected(via 90) to an inner face of the vertical leg of the pour stop(see Fig. 3) and extending horizontally and inward therefrom, the reinforcement rod configured to reinforce a concrete slab poured around the at least one reinforcement rod(see column 6, lines 27- 52).
Colasanto lacks the sealant used specifically with any fasteners.
The use of sealant to seal around fasteners, and the specific sealant and placement thereof, is considered well known in the construction art and considered a feature well within the purview of as killed artisan to have best determined and utilized in the panel of Colasanto.
Regarding claim 12, Colasanto discloses metal elements being welded to one another but lacks the studs specifically welded to the plate/track and the studs in compression when the frame is formed, and the pour stop welded to the top plate.
The use of compression and welding between studs and tracks to form a panel frame is considered well known in the construction art and considered features well within the purview of a skilled artisan to have utilized in the panel of Colasanto to have provided a structurally strong frame and aided in the prevention of compression during use of the panel and damage to the panel or structure in which the panel is used.
The use of a weld between the pour stop and rod is considered a feature well within the purview of a skilled artisan to have utilized in the panel of Colasanto to have provided a better securement of the rod and a structurally strong frame panel.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colasanto in view of Way(8,186,128; cited on PTO 892).
Colasnato disclose the prefabricated exterior wall panel/method of claims 1 and 12, but lacks the use of a window,
Way discloses a wall panel having a frame(18) with a window opening formed in the frame; a sheathing opening formed in the sheathing and aligned with the window opening of the metal stud frame(see Fig. 5); and a window assembly(60) installed within the window opening of the frame and the sheathing opening(see Fig. 5), wherein the window assembly includes a glass pane positioned within a window frame(see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the frame of Colasanto with a window, such as disclosed by Way, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have provided viewing through the panel given the intended use of the panel design requirements thereof.
Colasanto and Way lack the specific sealant used around the window.
The use of sealant to seal around fasteners is considered well known in the construction art and considered a feature well within the purview of as killed artisan to have utilized in the panel of Colasanto.
Claims 3, 7, 9, 14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colasanto and Way, as applied to claims 1-2 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Cable(4,235,054; cited on PTO 892)
Colasanto and Way disclose the prefabricated exterior wall panel and method of claims 2 and 13, but lack the use a lintel/support ledge connected to the metal stud frame/pour stop(via elements of the panel) above the window opening.
Cable discloses a stud frame having an opening(80) with a lintel/support ledge(82) and cladding(W) attached via fasteners(16).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the opening of Colasanto and Way with a lintel, such as disclosed by Cable, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have provided added structure to the panel and good attachment of the cladding to the area around the opening, wherein the lintel is inherently configured to support cladding above the window opening. The specific attachment and location of the lintel/support ledge is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colasanto and Way and Cable, as applied to claims 3 and 7 above, and further in view of Snith(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2005/0284045; cited on PTO 892).
Colasanto, way and Cable discloses the prefabricated exterior wall panel of claim 3, but lack the lintel configured to support the cladding a distance away from the exterior surface of the exterior sheathing such that moisture between the exterior sheathing and the cladding is able to drain in an air space therebetween.
Smith discloses a structure having a lintel/support ledge spacing the cladding from the structure(see Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the opening of Colasanto and Way and Cable with a lintel having an air space, such as disclosed by Smith, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have provided added provided good air flow through the system given the intended use of the system and specific design requirements thereof.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colasanto in view of Clear(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2013/03333`8; cited on PTO 892).
Colasanto and Way discloses the prefabricated exterior wall panel of Claim 1 wherein the at least one reinforcement rod is attached to the vertical leg of the pour stop, but lacks the specific attachment.
Clear discloses a reinforcement rod(40a, 40b) used in a concrete pour with a receiver to receive the rod to secure the rod to the element(see Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the opening of Colasanto with a receiver, such as disclosed by Clear, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have a attachment of the reinforcement rod to the pour stop given the intended use of the system and specific design requirements thereof. The specific attachment is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the system and specific design requirements thereof, such as the desire for a permanent attachment or a removable attachment
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH A. STEPHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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 at 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.
BETH A. STEPHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Stephan/