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 final office action in response to the amendment filed 2/4/2026.
Claims 1 and 9 are amended.
Claims 1-16 are pending and examined.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Clohessy(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2018/0058088; cited previously on PTO 892).
Clohessy discloses a vapour barrier corner element(20, see Figs. 4-6) comprising:
a first elongated flat sheet(21, see Fig. 4) having a predetermined length, a predetermined first width, and a predetermined first thickness; and,
a second elongated flat sheet(22, see Fig. 4) extending from the first sheet along the length thereof and oriented at a predetermined angle thereto(see Figs. 5-6), the second elongated flat sheet having a predetermined second width and a predetermined second thickness;
wherein the first sheet and the second sheet are adapted such that at least a portion of each of the first sheet and the second sheet fit into a corner of a building frame and such that an exterior facing surface of each of the first sheet and the second sheet align with a respective first inside facing surface and a respective second inside facing surface of the corner of the building frame(the claims are drawn to a corner element and not the system with a building and the sheets are capable of being used in a corner or a building frame and therefor meet the claim limitation), and
wherein the first width and the second width are determined such that a vapour barrier membrane can be mounted thereto in a substantially airtight manner, and wherein the first sheet and the second sheet are made such that the vapour barrier corner element is semi-rigid(a vapour barrier membrane is capable of being used in a corner or a building frame and therefor meet the claim limitation, the sheets are folded with respect to one another at 26 and therefore considered “semi-rigid).
Regarding claim 2, Clohessy discloses the vapour barrier corner element according to claim 1 comprising an adhesive layer(27, see paras. 0040] and [0041] and Fig. 5) disposed on at least a portion of the exterior facing surface of each of the first sheet and the second sheet, the adhesive layer being adapted for mounting the vapour barrier corner element to the respective inside facing surface of the corner(the adhesives attach the barrier and therefore considered meet the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Clohessy discloses the vapour barrier corner element according to claim 2 wherein the adhesive layer(27) is disposed in proximity to a dividing line between the first sheet and the second sheet(see para, [0040] and [0041] and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Clohessy discloses the vapour barrier corner element according to claim 1 comprising an adhesive layer(27) disposed on each of the first sheet and the second sheet, being adapted for mounting the vapour barrier membrane to the vapour barrier corner element(the element being folded the opposite direction would allow for the adhesive to be on the “interior facing surface” of the sheet meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claims 6-7, Clohessy discloses the vapour barrier corner element according to claim 1 wherein the second sheet is orientable at a right angle to the first sheet as well as oriented at an angle to the first sheet other than a right angle(via fold line 26 and angles of structures the element will be attached to).
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.
Or in the alternative, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clohessy in view of Ryden(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2010/0263311; cited previously on PTO 892).
Regarding claim 1-3, Clohessy discloses the vapour barrier corner element(20, see Figs. 4-6) as discussed above but lacks the specific use of the element at a corner of a building.
Ryden discloses a bulding frame with a cornet element(1101/1103, see Figs. 12-13).
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 corner element of Colhessy in a building frame, such as disclosed by Ryden, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have easily provided a barrier for a corner in a building frame without excess labor necessary.
Regarding claims 4-8, Clohessy discloses the vapour barrier corner element according to claim 4 but lacks the specific angle of the sheets, the width of the sheets being the same, and the specific use of and placement of the adhesive layers.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the angle between the sheets, width dimensions of the sheets and placement of the adhesive(see paras. [0031] and [0035]).
Therefore, the angle, width dimension of the sheets and location of the adhesives are considered features best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the element and specific design requirements thereof.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-16 are allowed.
No prior art of record shows a method of installing a vapour barrier with the specifics of the barrier, frame and membrane, and interrelation thereof, nor any motivation to do so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 9-16 have been considered but are moot given that the previous rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/