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 limitation “shaped to inhibit”, “shaped to angle fluid away”, “shaped for promoting”, and “configured to divert water” in claims 1, 2, 9, 12, and 18 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear how the function is performed. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1: It is unclear how the inner side of the frame is shaped to inhibit pooling of fluid. What shape inhibits pooling of fluid?
Regarding claim 2: It is unclear how the exterior surfaces are shaped to angle fluid away. What shape angles fluid away? Additionally, it is unclear if the exterior surfaces make up the inner side or are they additional elements?
Regarding claim 12: It is how the outer surfaces are shaped to angle fluid away. What shape angles fluid away?
Regarding claim 18: It is unclear how a central portion is shaped to promote the movement of fluid towards the inner end thereof. What shape promotes fluid movement?
Regarding claim 20: It is unclear how the sloped surfaces are configured to divert water. Which sloped surfaces divert water? The surfaces appear to be perpendicular to each other.
Additional claims rejected under 35 USC 112 but not addressed are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and failing to further remedy the issue(s).
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) 1-5, 9-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Libreiro et al. (US PGPub No 2015/0345152).
Referring to claim 1: Libreiro teaches a frame (item 32) for coupling a wall panel to a wall or wall substrate, wherein the frame has an inner side (item 64) configured to be in fluid communication with a central portion of the wall panel, wherein the frame has an outer side (item 74) spaced-apart from the inner side thereof. Libreiro does not specifically teach wherein the inner side of the frame is shaped to inhibit pooling of fluid thereon. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the shape of wall 64 leading down into 61 would discourage pooling as would the wall shape of the instant application.
Referring to claim 2: Libreiro teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Libreiro teaches wherein the frame has exterior surfaces along the inner side thereof, with the exterior surfaces being shaped to angle fluid away therefrom and outwards from the frame (figure 9, shaped similar to the instant invention).
Referring to claim 3: Libreiro teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Libreiro teaches wherein the frame has an inner end configured to face the wall or wall substrate and an outer end spaced-apart from the inner end thereof, with the inner and outer sides of the frame extending between the inner and outer ends of the frame, and wherein the exterior surfaces along the inner side of the frame extend from the inner end to the outer end of the frame (figure 3).
Referring to claim 4: Libreiro teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Libreiro teaches wherein the exterior surfaces along the inner side of the frame comprise a plurality of L-shapes in lateral profile (figure 9).
Referring to claim 5: Libreiro teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Libreiro teaches wherein the frame has an inner end configured to face the wall or wall substrate wherein the frame has an outer end spaced-apart from the inner end thereof, with the inner and outer sides of the frame extending between the inner and outer ends of the frame, and wherein the frame along the inner side thereof comprises a first or inner L-shaped bracket portion (item 61) facing the inner end thereof and a second or outer L-shaped bracket portion (items 62 and 74) facing the outer end thereof (figure 9).
Referring to claim 9: Libreiro teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Libreiro teaches wherein the frame has two or more angled outer surfaces shaped for promoting removal of fluid therefrom and/or promoting rainscreen control thereof (figure 9).
Referring to claim 10: Libreiro teaches all the frame accordingly to claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Libreiro teaches a plurality of frames (figure 3); and a plurality of clips (item 36) via which the frames couple wall panels to a wall or wall substrate.
Referring to claim 11: Libreiro teaches a wall panel assembly comprising: one or more wall panels (item 30); and a plurality of frames (item 32 as noted above) each according to claim 1 and via which the one or more wall panels couple to a wall or wall substrate (figure 3).
Referring to claim 12: Libreiro teaches a frame (item 32) for coupling a wall panel to a wall or wall substrate, the frame comprising a series of longitudinally-extending channels with outer surfaces thereof. Libreiro does not specifically teach the outer surfaces are shaped to angle fluid away therefrom and/or outwards from the frame. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the shape of wall 64 leading down into 61 would angle fluid away as would the wall shape of the instant application.
Referring to claim 13: Libreiro teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Additionally, Libreiro teaches wherein the frame comprises three said channels (figure 9).
Referring to claim 14: Libreiro teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Additionally, Libreiro teaches wherein the frame has an inner side configured to be in fluid communication with a central portion of the wall panel, wherein the frame has an outer side spaced-apart from the inner side thereof, and wherein each said channel faces said outer side of the frame (figure 9).
Referring to claim 15: Libreiro teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Additionally, Libreiro teaches wherein the channels form a plurality of C-shapes in lateral section each facing the same direction (figure 9).
Referring to claim 16: Libreiro teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Additionally, Libreiro teaches an inner said channel, an outer said channel and a middle said channel extending between and laterally outwardly positioned from the inner said channel and the outer said channel (figure 9).
Referring to claim 17: Libreiro teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Additionally, Libreiro teaches an inner said channel, an outer said channel and a middle said channel extending between and inhibiting fluid communication between the inner said channel and the outer said channel (figure 9).
Referring to claim 18: Libreiro teaches a frame (item 32) for coupling a wall panel (item 30) to a wall or wall substrate, with surfaces along an inner side thereof between an inner end and a central portion and with surfaces along the inner side thereof between an outer end and the central portion thereof (figure 9). Libreiro does not specifically teach the surfaces thereof being shaped to promote movement of fluid towards the inner end thereof, and being shaped to promote movement of fluid towards the outer end thereof. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the shape of wall 64 leading down into 61 and 62 would promote fluid movement in either direction.
Referring to claim 20: Libreiro teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as noted above. Libreiro does not specifically teach wherein the frame has sloped surfaces configured to divert water and/or inhibit pooling of water. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the shape of wall 64 leading down into 61 would discourage pooling as would the wall shape of the instant application.
Claim(s) 6-8, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Libreiro in view of Mitchell et al. (US Patent No 5,916,100) (“Mitchell”).
Referring to claim 6: Libreiro teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as noted above. Libreiro does not teach wherein the frame includes a third or intermediate L-shaped bracket portion facing one of the inner and outer ends thereof, the third or intermediate L-shaped bracket portion extending between and coupling together the first or inner L-shaped bracket portion and the second or outer L-shaped bracket portion. However, Mitchell teaches wherein the frame includes a third or intermediate L-shaped bracket portion facing (item 66) one of the inner and outer ends thereof, the third or intermediate L-shaped bracket portion extending between and coupling together the first or inner L-shaped bracket portion and the second or outer L-shaped bracket portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Libreiro with the L-shaped bracket portion taught by Mitchell in order to add additional strength to the frame member to prevent bending.
Referring to claim 7: Libreiro and Mitchell teach all the limitations of claim 6 as noted above. Additionally, Mitchell teaches wherein the third or intermediate L-shaped bracket portion is laterally outwardly positioned relative to the first or inner L-shaped bracket portion and the second or outer L-shaped bracket portion (figure 2). This allows for additional bending stiffness.
Referring to claim 8: Libreiro teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Libreiro does not teach wherein the frame has an inner end configured to face the wall or wall substrate, where the frame has an outer end spaced-apart from the inner end thereof, with the inner and outer sides of the frame extending between the inner and outer ends of the frame, and wherein the frame along the inner side thereof, comprises a first one or more steps which direct fluid thereon to the inner end thereof and a second one or more steps which direct fluid thereon to the outer end thereof. However, Mitchell teaches wherein the frame has an inner end configured to face the wall or wall substrate, where the frame has an outer end spaced-apart from the inner end thereof, with the inner and outer sides of the frame extending between the inner and outer ends of the frame, and wherein the frame along the inner side thereof, comprises a first one or more steps which direct fluid thereon to the inner end thereof and a second one or more steps which direct fluid thereon to the outer end thereof (figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Libreiro with the steps taught by Mitchell in order to better shed any fluid from the frame.
Referring to claim 19: Libreiro teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as noted above. Libreiro does not teach wherein the central portion thereof comprises a laterally-extending flange positioned between the inner end and the outer end of the frame. However, Mitchell teaches wherein the central portion thereof comprises a laterally-extending flange (item 66) positioned between the inner end and the outer end of the frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Libreiro with the lateral flange taught by Mitchell in order to add additional strength to the frame member to prevent bending.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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 Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights