DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-22 as filed on 04/30/2026 are pending and herewith considered as indicated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meakins (US 20200024890) in view of Kumar et al. (US 9302709 B1)(Herein Kumar) and Markman et al. (US-20200131761-A1)(Herein Markman)
In regards to Claim 1, Meakins discloses
A unitized panel system [Abstract] comprising;
a perimeter metal unitized frame (10) [Fig 8] having a first section [Fig 8, First section of (10)] connected to a second section [Fig 8, Second section of (10)] angled from the first section [Fig 8, First section of (10)];
However, Meakins fails to disclose
a FRP (fiber-reinforced polymer) composite panel comprising a first side surface, a second side surface opposite to the first side surface, and an end surface connected between the first side surface and the second side surface within the perimeter metal unitized frame; and
a metal structure being a different component from the perimeter metal unitized frame and configured for securing the FRP composite panel to the perimeter metal unitized frame, the metal structure having a first U-shaped portion enclosing an end portion of the FRP composite panel, the first U-shaped portion comprising a bottom section coupled between a first arm and a second arm, the first arm of the first U-shaped portion of the metal structure attached to the first section of the perimeter metal unitized frame by using a first structural adhesive
Furthermore, Kumar discloses
a FRP (fiber-reinforced polymer) composite panel (100) [Fig 1] [see col 4, lines 25-28 disclosing (102, 104) are FRP Skins] comprising a first side surface (102) [Fig 1], a second side surface (104) [Fig 1] opposite to the first side surface (102) [Fig 1], and an end surface [Fig 1, bottom/top surface of (100)] connected between the first side surface (102) [Fig 1] and the second side surface (104) [Fig 1] within the perimeter metal unitized frame (10, Meakins) [Fig 8]; and
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitized panel system by Meakins to further include a FRP (fiber-reinforced polymer) composite panel comprising a first side surface, a second side surface opposite to the first side surface, and an end surface connected between the first side surface and the second side surface within the perimeter metal unitized frame as disclosed by Kumar. When modified, the FRP panel allows for ease of procurement and furthermore, increase in strength and flexibility.
Furthermore, Markman discloses
a metal structure (1312) [Fig 5A] [0087] being a different component [As shown different, Fig 5A] from the perimeter metal unitized frame and configured for securing the FRP composite panel (100, Kumar) [Fig 1] [see col 4, lines 25-28] to the perimeter metal unitized frame, the metal structure (1312) [Fig 5A] [0087] having a first U-shaped portion [As shown in Fig 5A] enclosing an end portion [Fig 1, bottom/top surface of (100), Kumar] of the FRP composite panel (100, Kumar) [Fig 16] [see col 4, lines 25-28], the first U-shaped portion [As shown in Fig 5A] comprising a bottom section [Fig 5A, See examiners comments] coupled between a first arm [Fig 5A, See examiners comments] and a second arm [Fig 5A, See examiners comments], the first arm [Fig 5A, See examiners comments] of the first U-shaped portion [As shown in Fig 5A] of the metal structure (1312) [Fig 5A] [0087] attached to the first section [Fig 8, First section of (10), Meakins] of the perimeter metal unitized frame (10, Meakins) [Fig 8] by using a first structural adhesive [See Col 5, Lines 30-32, Kumar]
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitized panel system by Meakins to further include a metal structure being a different component from the perimeter metal unitized frame and configured for securing the FRP composite panel to the perimeter metal unitized frame, the metal structure having a first U-shaped portion enclosing an end portion of the FRP composite panel, the first U-shaped portion comprising a bottom section coupled between a first arm and a second arm, the first arm of the first U-shaped portion of the metal structure attached to the first section of the perimeter metal unitized frame by using a first structural adhesive as disclosed by Markman. When modified, the metal structure with all limitations allows for ease of assembly disassembly on the field. Furthermore, allowing the panel to sustain more environmental impact.
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitized panel system by Meakins to further include a structural adhesive as disclosed by Kumar. When modified, the structural adhesive allows for connection.
In regards to Claim 2, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 1, wherein the metal structure (1312, Markman) [Fig 5A] [0087] has an angled outer surface [As shown in Fig 5A, Markman] configured to match with a shape [Fig 8, Markman] of the perimeter metal unitized frame (10) [Fig 8].
In regards to Claim 3, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 1, wherein the metal structure (1312, Markman) [Fig 5A] [0087] comprises a second portion [See examiners comment, Fig 5A, Markman] extending along the bottom section [See examiners comment, Fig 5A, Markman] away from the second arm [See examiners comment, Fig 5A, Markman] of the first U-shaped portion [As shown in Fig 5A, Markman] to add stiffness to the metal structure (1312, Markman) [Fig 5A] [0087].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitized panel system Meakins to further include wherein the metal structure comprises a second portion extending along the bottom section away from the second arm of the first U-shaped portion to add stiffness to the metal structure as disclosed by Markman. When modified, the second portion allows for stability.
In regards to Claim 4, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 3, wherein the second portion [See examiners comment, Fig 5A, Markman] of the metal structure (1312, Markman) [Fig 5A] [0087] is attached to the second section [See examiners comment, Fig 5A, Markman] of the perimeter metal unitized frame (10) [Fig 8] by using the first structural adhesive [See Col 5, Lines 30-32, Kumar].
In regards to Claim 5, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 1, wherein the end portion [Fig 1, bottom/top surface of (100), Kumar] of the FRP composite panel (100, Kumar) [Fig 1] [see col 4, lines 25-28 disclosing (102, 104) are FRP Skins] is enclosed between the first arm [Fig 5A, See examiners comments, Markman] and the second arm [Fig 5A, See examiners comments, Markman] substantially parallel to the first arm [Fig 5A, See examiners comments, Markman] and attached to the first and second arms [Fig 5A, See examiners comments, Markman] by a mechanical securing device (1102, Kumar) [Figs 11A/11B] , wherein the end portion [Fig 1, bottom/top surface of (100) , Kumar] of the FRP composite panel (100, Kumar) [Fig 1] [see col 4, lines 25-28 disclosing (102, 104) are FRP Skins] comprises a portion of the first side surface (102, Kumar) [Fig 1], a portion of the second side surface (104, Kumar) [Fig 1], and the end surface [Fig 1, bottom/top surface of (100) , Kumar].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitized panel system by Meakins to further include a mechanical securing device as disclosed by Kumar. When modified, the mechanical securing device allows for securing and fastening measurements.
In regards to Claim 6, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 1, wherein the FRP composite panel (100, Kumar) [Fig 1] [see col 4, lines 25-28 disclosing (102, 104) are FRP Skins]
However, fails to disclose
wherein the FRP composite panel comprises a fire-resistant FRP composite.
However, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the FRP composite panel of Kumar to be made of Fire-Resistant FRP Composite in order to enhance safety and slow fire spread, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
In regards to Claim 7, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 1, wherein the first structural adhesive [See Col 5, Lines 30-32, Kumar]
However, fails to disclose
wherein the first structural adhesive comprises silicone.
However, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first structural adhesive of Kumar to comprise silicone in order to enhance safety and waterproofing, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
In regards to Claim 8, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 1, further comprising a second structural adhesive bonding [See Col 5, Lines 30-32] the FRP composite panel (100) [Fig 1] [see col 4, lines 25-28 disclosing (102, 104) are FRP Skins] to the first U-Shaped portion [As shown in Fig 5A] of the metal structure (1312) [Fig 5A] [0087].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitized panel system by Meakins to further include a structural adhesive as disclosed by Kumar. When modified, the structural adhesive allows for connection.
In regards to Claim 9, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 1, wherein the perimeter metal unitized frame (10) [Fig 8] comprises a first aluminum [Abstract, “Aluminum extrusion framing system”] or aluminum alloy, wherein the metal structure (1312, Markman) [Fig 5A] [0087] comprises a second aluminum [See 0067, disclosing Frame (210) is made of aluminum, wherein (1312) is apart of (210), as shown in Fig 5A, Markman]
However, fails to disclose
wherein the metal structure comprises a second aluminum is made of aluminum, or aluminum alloy with an Alodine coating.
However, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aluminum structure of Markman to be comprise a Alodine Coating in order to prevent corrosion since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
In regards to Claim 10, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 1, wherein the first structural adhesive [See Col 5, Lines 30-32, Kumar]
However, fails to disclose wherein the first structural adhesive is weatherproof.
However, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first structural adhesive of Kumar to be made of weatherproof material in order resist weather effects since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meakins (US 20200024890) in view of Kumar et al. (US 9302709 B1)(Herein Kumar) and Pegher (US 20230113988)
In regards to Claim 11, Meakins discloses
A unitized panel system [Abstract] comprising;
a perimeter metal unitized frame (10) [Fig 8] having a first section [Fig 8, First section of (10)] connected to a second section [Fig 8, Second section of (10)] angled from the first section [Fig 8, First section of (10)];
However, fails to disclose
a FRP (fiber-reinforced polymer) composite panel comprising a first side surface, a second side surface opposite to the first side surface, and an end surface coupled between the first side surface and the second side surface; and
an angled metal structure being a different component from the perimeter metal unitized frame and configured for securing the FRP composite panel to the perimeter metal unitized frame, the angled metal structure having a first portion to a second portion angled from the first portion, the first portion attached to the first section of the perimeter metal unitized frame by using a first structural adhesive, wherein the angled metal structure has an angled outer surface shaped to match to the perimeter metal unitized frame.
Furthermore, Kumar discloses
a FRP (fiber-reinforced polymer) composite panel (100) [Fig 1] [see col 4, lines 25-28 disclosing (102, 104) are FRP Skins] comprising a first side surface (102) [Fig 1], a second side surface (104) [Fig 1] opposite to the first side surface (102) [Fig 1], and an end surface [Fig 1, bottom/top surface of (100)] coupled between the first side surface (102) [Fig 1]and the second side surface (104) [Fig 1];
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitized panel system by Meakins to further include a FRP (fiber-reinforced polymer) composite panel comprising a first side surface, a second side surface opposite to the first side surface, and an end surface connected between the first side surface and the second side surface within the perimeter metal unitized frame as disclosed by Kumar. When modified, the FRP panel allows for ease of procurement and furthermore, increase in strength and flexibility.
Furthermore, Pegher discloses
an angled metal structure (100) [Fig 1] being a different component from the perimeter metal unitized frame (10, Meakins) [Fig 8] and configured for securing the FRP composite panel (100, Kumar) [Fig 1] [see col 4, lines 25-28 disclosing (102, 104) are FRP Skins] to the perimeter metal unitized frame (10, Meakins) [Fig 8], the angled metal structure (100) [Fig 1] having a first portion (10) [Fig 1] to a second portion (12) [Fig 1] angled from the first portion (10) [Fig 1], the first portion (10) [Fig 1] attached to the first section [Fig 8, First section of (10), Meakins] of the perimeter metal unitized frame (10, Meakins) [Fig 8] by using a first structural adhesive [See Col 5, Lines 30-32, Kumar], wherein the angled metal structure (100) [Fig 1] has an angled outer surface [As shown in Fig 1] shaped to match to the perimeter metal unitized frame (10, Meakins) [Fig 8].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitized panel system by Meakins to further include an angled metal structure being a different component from the perimeter metal unitized frame and configured for securing the FRP composite panel to the perimeter metal unitized frame, the angled metal structure having a first portion to a second portion angled from the first portion, the first portion attached to the first section of the perimeter metal unitized frame by using a first structural adhesive, wherein the angled metal structure has an angled outer surface shaped to match to the perimeter metal unitized frame as disclosed by Pegher. When modified, the angled aluminum structure allows for a reasonable expectation of success to bolster the structural integrity of the system.
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitized panel system by Meakins to further include a structural adhesive as disclosed by Kumar. When modified, the structural adhesive allows for connection.
In regards to Claim 12, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 11, wherein the second portion (12, Pegher) [Fig 1] of the angled metal structure (100, Pegher) [Fig 1] is attached to the first side surface (102, Kumar) [Fig 1] of the FRP composite panel (100, Kumar) [Fig 1] [see col 4, lines 25-28 disclosing (102, 104) are FRP Skins] by a mechanical securing device (24, Pegher) [Fig 4]
However, it would have also been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitized panel system as disclosed by Meakins to further include a mechanical securing device connecting the angled aluminum structure to the first side surface of the FRP composite panel. When modified, the mechanical securing device would fasten the FRP panel to the angled structure instead of the already set wedge for fastening.
In regards to Claim 13, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 11, wherein the second side surface (104, Kumar) [Fig 1] of the FRP composite panel (100, Kumar) [Fig 1] [see col 4, lines 25-28 disclosing (102, 104) are FRP Skins] is attached to the second section [Fig 8, Second section of (10)] of the perimeter metal unitized frame (10) [Fig 8] by using the first structural adhesive [See Col 5, Lines 30-32, Kumar].
In regards to Claim 14, Meakins as modified
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 11, wherein the end surface [Fig 1, bottom/top surface of (100), Kumar] of the FRP composite panel (100, Kumar) [Fig 1] [see col 4, lines 25-28 disclosing (102, 104) are FRP Skins] is attached to an end portion [Bottom of (10), Fig 8] of the first section [Fig 8, First section of (10)] of the perimeter metal unitized frame (10) [Fig 8] by using the first structural adhesive [See Col 5, Lines 30-32, Kumar].
In regards to Claim 15, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 14, wherein the end portion [Bottom of (10), Fig 8] is near an intersection of the first section [Fig 8, First section of (10)] and the second section [Fig 8, Second section of (10)].
In regards to Claim 16, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 1, wherein the FRP composite panel (100, Kumar) [Fig 1] [see col 4, lines 25-28 disclosing (102, 104) are FRP Skins]
However, fails to disclose
wherein the FRP composite panel comprises a fire-resistant FRP composite.
However, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the FRP composite panel of Kumar to be made of Fire-Resistant FRP Composite in order to enhance safety and slow fire spread, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
In regards to Claim 17, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 11, wherein the first structural adhesive [See Col 5, Lines 30-32, Kumar]
However, fails to disclose
wherein the first structural adhesive comprises silicone.
However, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first structural adhesive of Kumar to comprise silicone in order to enhance safety and waterproofing, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
In regards to Claim 18, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 11, further comprising a second structural adhesive [See Col 5, Lines 30-32, Kumar] bonding the FRP composite panel (100, Kumar) [Fig 1] [see col 4, lines 25-28 disclosing (102, 104) are FRP Skins] to the first portion (10, Pegher) [Fig 1] of the angled metal structure (100, Pegher) [Fig 1].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitized panel system by Meakins to further include a second structural adhesive as disclosed by Kumar. When modified, the second structural adhesive allows for connection.
In regards to Claim 19, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 11, wherein the perimeter metal unitized frame (10) [Fig 8] comprises a first aluminum [Abstract, “Aluminum extrusion framing system”] or aluminum alloy, wherein the angled metal structure (100, Pegher) [Fig 1] comprises a second aluminum [See 0036, “the wall panel clip 100 can be formed of a single unitary piece of material, such as a metallic material” as understood, aluminum is metallic]
However, fails to disclose
wherein the angled metal structure comprises a second aluminum or aluminum alloy with an Alodine coating.
However, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aluminum structure of Pegher to be comprise a Alodine Coating in order to prevent corrosion since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
In regards to Claim 20, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 11, wherein the first structural adhesive [See Col 5, Lines 30-32, Kumar]
However, fails to disclose wherein the first structural adhesive is weatherproof.
However, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first structural adhesive of Kumar to be made of weatherproof material in order resist weather effects since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
In regards to Claim 21, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 1, wherein the perimeter metal unitized frame (10) [Fig 8] comprises a closed boundary [Claim 44, as understood discloses “A Framing System”, it is understood a framing system has a closed boundary].
However, fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the perimeter metal unitized frame comprises a closed boundary having a rectangular shape
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the perimeter metal unitized frame of Meakins to have a rectangle in shape in order to allow for ease of procurement. When modified, the rectangular shape is a common shape in the industry allowing for ease of procurement. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
In regards to Claim 21, Meakins as modified discloses
The unitized panel system [Abstract] of claim 11, wherein the perimeter metal unitized frame (10) [Fig 8] comprises a closed boundary [Claim 44, as understood discloses “A Framing System”, it is understood a framing system has a closed boundary].
However, fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the perimeter metal unitized frame comprises a closed boundary having a rectangular shape
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the perimeter metal unitized frame of Meakins to have a rectangle in shape in order to allow for ease of procurement. When modified, the rectangular shape is a common shape in the industry allowing for ease of procurement. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Examiners Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
670
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Meakins Figure 8
PNG
media_image2.png
447
533
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Markman, Figure 5A
PNG
media_image3.png
592
786
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pegher, Figure 1
Response to Arguments
1. Objections to the Claims: Applicant' s argument with respect to the claim objections is persuasive and objection to the claims is hereby withdrawn.
2. Objections to the Drawings: Applicant' s argument with respect to the drawings is persuasive and objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn.
3. Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant' s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby withdrawn.
4. Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant' s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
In regards to the to the following arguments:
Neither Meakins nor Aceto, alone or in combination, teach or suggest "the first arm of the first U-shaped portion of the metal structure attached to the first section of the perimeter metal unitized frame by using a first structural adhesive," as recited in amended claim 1.
Neither Meakins nor Aceto, alone or in combination, teach or suggest "a metal structure being a different component from the perimeter metal unitized frame and configured for securing the FRP composite panel to the perimeter metal unitized frame," as recited in amended claim 1.
Claims 11-20
Examiner Response: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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. The metal structure is no longer relied upon for by Meakins but is now relied upon by Markman et al. (US-20200131761-A1). Furthermore, the first structural adhesive is no longer relied upon for by Aceto but is now relied upon by Kumar et al. (US-9302709-B1). Additionally, the additional limitation (specifically, in claim 1) of “a metal structure being a different component from the perimeter metal unitized frame and configured for securing the FRP composite panel to the perimeter metal unitized frame” has necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Additionally, in regards to the argument set forth regarding Pegher, examiner does not agree with applicant in regards to "an angled metal structure being a different component from the perimeter metal unitized frame and configured for securing the FRP composite panel to the perimeter metal unitized frame,". Pegher does indeed disclose an angled metal structure being a different component from the perimeter metal unitized frame. (please see the 103 – rejection and examiners comments sections above). As written in the above Pegher discloses
an angled metal structure (100) [Fig 1] being a different component from the perimeter metal unitized frame (10, Meakins) [Fig 8] which is as understood, applied and referenced by the examiner an angled metal structure being a different component from the perimeter metal unitized frame.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO 892.
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 ZAKARIA K. AL-ASWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-6335. The examiner can normally be reached M through F 7:30 to 5PM.
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.
/Z.K.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights