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 1-20 as filed on 04/05/2024 are pending and herewith considered as indicated below.
Drawings
2. 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 second structural adhesive must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “17” has been used to designate both the second structural adhesive [paragraph 0050] and stiffening ribs [paragraph 0044]. 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.
4. 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 Objections
Claim(s) 12-14 and 16-20 objected to because of the following informalities: Improper claim references, see below for explanation. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to Claim 12, Claim 12 as indicated in the claims filed 04/05/2024 is dependent on Claim 9, however examiner believes this is incorrect and is intended to be dependent on Claim 11 instead. Claim 9 discusses an Alodine coating for the aluminum structure whereas Claim 12 discusses a fastener attachment mechanism between the second portion of the angled aluminum structure and the first side of the FRP composite panel.
In regards to Claim 13, Claim 13 as indicated in the claims filed 04/05/2024 is dependent on Claim 9, however examiner believes this is incorrect and is intended to be dependent on Claim 11 instead. Claim 9 discusses an Alodine coating for the aluminum structure whereas Claim 13 discusses wherein the second side surface of the FRP composite panel is attached to the second section of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame by using the first structural adhesive.
In regards to Claim 14, Claim 14 as indicated in the claims filed 04/05/2024 is dependent on Claim 9, however examiner believes this is incorrect and is intended to be dependent on Claim 11 instead. Claim 9 discusses an Alodine coating for the aluminum structure whereas Claim 14 discusses wherein the end surface of the FRP composite panel is attached to an end portion of the first section of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame by using the first structural adhesive.
In regards to Claim 16, Claim 16 as indicated in the claims filed 04/05/2024 is dependent on Claim 9, however examiner believes this is incorrect and is intended to be dependent on Claim 11 instead. Claim 9 discusses an Alodine coating for the aluminum structure whereas Claim 16 discusses wherein the FRP composite panel comprises a fire-resistant FRP composite.
In regards to Claim 17, Claim 17 as indicated in the claims filed 04/05/2024 is dependent on Claim 9, however examiner believes this is incorrect and is intended to be dependent on Claim 11 instead. Claim 9 discusses an Alodine coating for the aluminum structure whereas Claim 17 discusses wherein the first structural adhesive comprises silicone.
In regards to Claim 18, Claim 18 as indicated in the claims filed 04/05/2024 is dependent on Claim 9, however examiner believes this is incorrect and is intended to be dependent on Claim 11 instead. Claim 9 discusses an Alodine coating for the aluminum structure whereas Claim 18 discusses further comprising a second structural adhesive bonding the FRP composite panel to the first portion of the angled aluminum structure.
In regards to Claim 19, Claim 19 as indicated in the claims filed 04/05/2024 is dependent on Claim 9, however examiner believes this is incorrect and is intended to be dependent on Claim 11 instead. Claim 9 discusses an Alodine coating for the aluminum structure whereas Claim 19 discusses wherein the angled aluminum structure comprises an Alodine coating (duplicate claim).
In regards to Claim 20, Claim 19 as indicated in the claims filed 04/05/2024 is dependent on Claim 9, however examiner believes this is incorrect and is intended to be dependent on Claim 11 instead. Claim 9 discusses an Alodine coating for the aluminum structure whereas Claim 20 discusses wherein the first structural adhesive is weatherproof
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.
5. Claims 5-6, 8, 12-14, 16 and 18 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.
The term “Fastener” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “Fastener” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The language is being interpreted as a method of securing and sealing.
In regards to Claim 6, “FRP” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears FRP is intended to recite fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP).
In regards to Claim 6, “FRP” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears FRP is intended to recite fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP).
In regards to Claim 8, “FRP” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears FRP is intended to recite fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP).
In regards to Claim 12, “FRP” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears FRP is intended to recite fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP).
The term “Fastener” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “Fastener” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The language is being interpreted as a method of securing and sealing.
In regards to Claim 13, “FRP” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears FRP is intended to recite fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP).
In regards to Claim 14, “FRP” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears FRP is intended to recite fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP).
In regards to Claim 16, “FRP” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears FRP is intended to recite fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP).
In regards to Claim 16, “FRP” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears FRP is intended to recite fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP).
In regards to Claim 18, “FRP” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears FRP is intended to recite fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 Aceto (US 20110120623)
In regards to Claim 1, Meakins discloses a unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) comprising; a perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10) having a first section (20, Figs 4 & 7) connected to a second section (not disclosed, Fig 4) (see examiners comments) angled from the first section (20, Figs 4 & 7); a fiber-reinforced polymer composite panel (16) [0003] comprising a first side surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments), a second side [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments) surface opposite to the first side surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4], and an end surface connected [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments) between the first side surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4] and the second side surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4] within the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10) ; and an aluminum structure (22) [Fig 4] having a first U-shaped portion [Fig 4] enclosing an end portion [Unnumbered, Fig 4] of the FRP composite panel (16), the first U-shaped portion [Fig 4] comprising a bottom section [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (see examiner comments) coupled between a first arm (24a) and a second arm (24b), the first arm (24a) of the first U-shaped portion [Fig 4] of the aluminum structure (22) [Fig 4] attached to the first section (20, Figs 4 & 7) of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10). However, fails to disclose the first arm (24a) of the first U-shaped portion [Fig 4] of the aluminum structure (22) [Fig 4] attached to the first section (20, Figs 4 & 7) of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10) by using a first structural adhesive.
Furthermore, Aceto discloses the first arm (24a, Meakins) of the first U-shaped portion [Fig 4, Meakins] of the aluminum structure (22, Meakins) [Fig 4, Meakins] attached to the first section (20, Meakins) [Figs 4 & 7 Meakins] of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10, Meakins) by using a first structural adhesive (5) [Figs 5-6].
However, 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 as disclosed by Meakins to further include a first structural adhesive as disclosed by Aceto with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a redundancy connection point as well as a weather barrier. When modified the unitized panel system specifically the first arm of the first U-shaped portion of the aluminum structure would be attached to the first section of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame by using a first structural adhesive.
In regards to Claim 2, Meakins discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 1, wherein the aluminum structure (22) [Fig 4] has an angled outer surface [Fig 4] configured to match with a shape of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10).
In regards to Claim 3, Meakins discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 1, wherein the aluminum structure (22) [Fig 4] comprises a second portion [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (see examiner comments) extending along the bottom section [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (see examiner comments) away from the second arm (24b) of the first U-shaped [Fig 4] portion to add stiffness to the aluminum structure (22) [Fig 4].
In regards to Claim 4, Meakins discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 3, wherein the second portion [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (see examiner comments) of the aluminum structure (22) [Fig 4] is attached to the second section not disclosed, Fig 4) (see examiners comments) of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10). However, fails to disclose wherein the second portion [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (see examiner comments) of the aluminum structure (22) [Fig 4] is attached to the second section not disclosed, Fig 4) (see examiners comments) of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10) by using the first structural adhesive.
Furthermore, Aceto discloses wherein the second portion [Unnumbered, Fig 4, Meakins] (see examiner comments) of the aluminum structure (22, Meakins) [Fig 4, Meakins] is attached to the second section (not disclosed, Fig 4, Meakins) (see examiners comments) of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10, Meakins) by using the first structural adhesive (5) [Figs 5-6].
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 first structural adhesive as disclosed by Aceto further allowing a redundancy connection point as well as a weather barrier. When modified the unitized panel system, wherein the second portion of the aluminum structure is attached to the second section of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame by using the first structural adhesive.
In regards to Claim 5, Meakins discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 1, wherein the end portion of the FRP composite panel (16) is enclosed between the first arm (24a) and the second arm (24b) substantially parallel to the first arm (24a) and attached [Fig 7] to the first (24a) and second arms (24b) by a fastener (12,14) [Figs 4 and 7], wherein the end portion of the FRP composite panel (16) comprises a portion of the first side surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments), a portion of the second side surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments), and the end surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments).
In regards to Claim 6, Meakins discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 1, wherein the FRP composite panel (16) [0003]. However, fails to discloses wherein the FRP composite 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 Meakins 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 in combinations discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 1.
Furthermore, Aceto discloses wherein the first structural adhesive (5) [Figs 5-6] comprises silicone [Abstract].
In regards to Claim 8, Meakins discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 1. However, fails to disclose further comprising a second structural adhesive bonding the FRP composite panel (16) [0003] to the first portion of the aluminum structure (22) [Fig 4].
Furthermore, Aceto discloses a second structural adhesive (5) [Figs 5-6] bonding the FRP composite panel (16, Meakins) [0003, Meakins] to the first portion of the aluminum structure (22, Meakins) [Fig 4, Meakins].
In regards to Claim 9, Meakins discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 1 and the aluminum structure (22) [Fig 4]. However, fails to disclose wherein the aluminum structure (22) [Fig 4] comprises 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 Meakins 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 discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 1. However, fails to disclose wherein the first structural adhesive (5) [Figs 5-6] is weatherproof.
Furthermore, Aceto discloses the first structural adhesive (5) [Figs 5-6].
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 Aceto 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 Aceto (US 20110120623) and Pegher (US 20230113988)
In regards to Claim 11, Meakins discloses a unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) comprising; a perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10) having a first section (20, Figs 4 & 7) coupled to a second section (Unnumbered, Fig 4) (see examiners comments) that is angled from the first section (20, Figs 4 & 7); a fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite panel (016) [0003] comprising a first side surface surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments), a second side surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments) opposite to the first side surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments), and an end surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments) coupled between the first side surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments) and the second side surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments). However, fails to disclose an angled aluminum structure having a first portion coupled to a second portion angled from the first portion, the first portion attached to the first section (20, Figs 4 & 7) of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10) by using a first structural adhesive, wherein the angled aluminum structure has an angled outer surface shaped to match to the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10).
Furthermore, Pegher discloses and an angled aluminum structure (100) [Figs 1-4] having a first portion [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) coupled to a second portion [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) angled [Fig 1] [Abstract] from the first portion [Unnumbered, Fig 1], the first portion [Unnumbered, Fig 1] attached to the first section (20, Figs 4 & 7, Meakins) of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10, Meakins) wherein the angled aluminum structure (100) [Figs 1-4] has an angled outer surface [Fig 1] shaped to match to the perimeter aluminum unitized (10, Meakins) frame.
However, 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 as disclosed by Meakins to further include an angled aluminum structure as disclosed by Pegher with a reasonable expectation of success to bolster the structural integrity of the system. When modified the angled structure would be placed at the bottom of the FRP panel system to facilitate a connection point to the first section of the perimeter aluminum frame. Additionally, 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.
Furthermore, Aceto discloses the first portion [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Pegher] attached to the first section (20, Figs 4 & 7, Meakins) of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10, Meakins) by using a first structural adhesive (5) [Figs 5-6], wherein the angled aluminum structure (100, Pegher) [Figs 1-4, Pegher] has an angled outer surface [Fig 1, Pegher] shaped to match to the perimeter aluminum unitized (10, Meakins) frame.
However, 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 as disclosed by Meakins to further include a first structural adhesive as disclosed by Aceto with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a redundancy connection point as well as a weather barrier. When modified the first portion attached to the first section of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame by using a first structural adhesive.
In regards to Claim 12, Meakins discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 9. However fails to disclose wherein the second portion of the angled aluminum structure is attached to the first side surface, of the FRP composite panel by a fastener.
Furthermore, Pegher discloses wherein the second portion [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) of the angled aluminum structure (100) [Figs 1-4] is attached to the first side surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4, Meakins] (See examiners comments, Meakins), of the FRP composite panel (16, Meakins) by a fastener (24) [Figs 2-4] .
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 fastener attachment connecting the angled aluminum structure to the first side surface of the FRP composite panel. When modified, the fastener would fasten the FRP panel to the angled structure instead of the already set wedge for fastening.
In regards to Claim 13, Meakins discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 9, wherein the second side surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments) of the FRP composite panel (16) is attached to the second section of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10). However, fails to disclose wherein the second side surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments) of the FRP composite panel (16) is attached to the second section of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10) by using the first structural adhesive.
Furthermore, Aceto discloses wherein the second side surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4, Meakins] (See examiners comments, Meakins) of the FRP composite panel (16, Meakins) is attached to the second section of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10, Meakins) by using the first structural adhesive (5) [Figs 5-6].
In regards to Claim 14, Meakins discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 9, wherein the end surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments) of the FRP composite panel (16) is attached to an end portion [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments) of the first section (20, Figs 4 & 7) of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10). However, fails to disclose wherein the end surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments) of the FRP composite panel (16) is attached to an end portion [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments) of the first section (20, Figs 4 & 7) of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10) by using the first structural adhesive.
Furthermore, Aceto discloses wherein the end surface [Unnumbered, Fig 4, Meakins] (See examiners comments, Meakins) of the FRP composite panel (16, Meakins) is attached to an end portion [Unnumbered, Fig 4, Meakins] (See examiners comments, Meakins) of the first section (20, Figs 4 & 7, Meakins) of the perimeter aluminum unitized frame (10, Meakins) by using the first structural adhesive (5) [Figs 5-6].
In regards to Claim 15, Meakins discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 14, wherein the end portion [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (See examiners comments) is near an intersection of the first section (20, Figs 4 & 7) and the second section (not disclosed, Fig 4) (see examiners comments).
In regards to Claim 16, Meakins discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 9, wherein the FRP composite panel (16) [0003]. However, fails to discloses wherein the FRP composite 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 Meakins to be made of Fire-Resistant FRP Composite in order 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 in combinations discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 9.
Furthermore, Aceto discloses wherein the first structural adhesive (5) [Figs 5-6] comprises silicone [Abstract]
In regards to Claim 18, Meakins discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 9. However, fails to disclose further comprising a second structural adhesive comprises bonding the FRP composite panel to the first portion of the angled aluminum structure.
Futhermore, Pegher discloses the first portion [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) of the angled aluminum structure (100) [Figs 1-4]
Futhermore, Aceto discloses further comprising a second structural adhesive (5) [Figs 5-6] comprises bonding the FRP composite panel (16, Meakins) [0003, Meakins] to the first portion [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Pegher] (see examiners comments, Pegher) of the angled aluminum structure (100, Pegher) [Figs 1-4, Pegher].
In regards to Claim 19, Meakins discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 9. However, fails to disclose wherein the angled aluminum structure comprises an Alodine coating.
Futhermore, Pegher discloses the angled aluminum structure (100) [Figs 1-4]
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 discloses the unitized panel system (Unnumbered, Fig 8) (see examiners comments) of claim 9. However, fails to disclose wherein the first structural adhesive (5) [Figs 5-6] is weatherproof.
Furthermore, Aceto discloses the first structural adhesive (5) [Figs 5-6].
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 Aceto 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.
Examiners Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
670
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Meakins Figure 8
PNG
media_image2.png
398
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Meakins Figure 4
PNG
media_image3.png
592
786
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pegher, Figure 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO 892.
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
/RODNEY MINTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635