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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13,15-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11396749 in view of CN202227551. US Patent 11396749 claims an exterior wall section having all the same parts and features of the presently pending claims including a structural frame including a plurality of studs connected together and having a perimeter and an interlocking structure to form a seal with at least one other wall section, but does not expressly claim studs intermediate exterior side studs and an extruded metal border extending around the perimeter or that structural frame is made of cold formed steel. CN202227551 discloses an exterior wall section including studs intermediate exterior studs and an extruded metal border extending around the perimeter forming interlocking connectors. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to pursue known design options and modify the exterior wall section of US Patent 11396749 to have interior studs and an extruded metal border to achieve the predictable result of a strong, durable and rot resistant structure. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the steel to be cold formed steel, 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. In the instant case it would have been obvious for at least the reason that cold formed steel has superior strength to weight ratios and faster manufacturing.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11396749. US Patent 11396749 claims the same exterior wall section having a structural layer, insulation layer, perimeter and interlocking structure and all the related claimed components and configurations as the presently claimed invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12000146. US Patent 12000146 claims the same exterior wall section having a structural frame, an insulation layer, a siding layer, a perimeter, an interlocking structure and all the related claimed components and configurations as the presently claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12000146. US Patent 12000146 claims the same exterior wall section having a framework including a sill, top plate, structural frame having a perimeter and extruded metal border as the presently pending claims, but does not claim the structural frame is cold formed steel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the steel to be cold formed steel, 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. In the instant case it would have been obvious for at least the reason that cold formed steel has superior strength to weight ratios and faster manufacturing.
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 17 and all claims depending therefrom 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the moisture barrier" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-2, 4-8,10-14,16,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glancy (20140090323) in view of EP0775786.
Claims 1,19. Glancy discloses an exterior wall section forming a portion of an exterior wall of a building, the building having a framework (as seen in the figures and disclosure), the exterior wall section comprising:
a structural layer (22/24/26 and/or 80) configured to be connected to the framework of the building and to support a weight of the exterior wall section, the structural layer including a plurality of studs (the portions of the skin 24,26 forming the edges and/or 80 and/or 60) connected together;
an insulation layer (28) supported by the structural layer and including insulation configured to insulate the building from an outside environment;
siding (14) supported by the structural layer and disposed exteriorly of the structural layer and insulation layer, the siding defining an exterior side of the exterior wall section;
a perimeter defined by edge margins of at least one of the structural layer, the insulation layer or the siding (as seen in the figures); and
an interlocking structure (at 30/32 including 38,40,34,36,42,44) extending along the perimeter and configured to mate with an interlocking structure of at least one other exterior wall section to form a seal with said at least one other exterior wall section when the exterior wall sections are connected to the framework of the building (as noted in the figures and disclosure).
Glancy does not expressly disclose that the building has multiple floors and the framework defines the multiple floors or wherein the exterior wall section has a height greater than a height of one floor of the building. However it is known in the art to have buildings having multiple floors defined by framework. For example EP0775786 discloses a building having framework and multiple floors defined by the framework as noted in the figures and disclosure and wherein the exterior wall section has a height greater than a height of one floor of the building. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the building of Glancy to have multiple floors defined by the framework wherein the exterior wall section has a height greater than a height of one floor of the building to achieve the predictable result of an expanded building footprint and/or aesthetic design.
Claim 2. The exterior wall section of claim 1, wherein the interlocking structure extends along a majority of the perimeter of the exterior wall section (as seen in the figures and disclosure of Glancy).
Claim 4. The exterior wall section of claim 2, wherein the interlocking structure includes a first interlocking connector and a second interlocking connector (at 34,36 and 38,40 and/or 42/40), the first interlocking connector being configured to form a seal with a second interlocking connector of the at least one other exterior wall section to form a seal with said at least one other exterior wall section (as noted in the figures and disclosure).
Claim 5. The exterior wall section of claim 4, wherein the first interlocking connector is a male (34/36 and/or 44) interlocking connector and wherein the second interlocking connector is a female (38/40 and/or 42) interlocking connector, the male interlocking connector being configured to be inserted into a female interlocking connector of the at least one other exterior wall section and the female interlocking connector being configured to receive a male interlocking connector of the at least one other exterior wall section (as seen in the figures and disclosure).
Claim 6. The exterior wall section of claim 5, wherein the male interlocking connector includes a first arm (any one of 34,36,44) configured to engage the female interlocking connector of the at least one other exterior wall section to form at least a portion of the seal therebetween (as seen in the figures and disclosure).
Claim 7. The exterior wall section of claim 6, wherein the male interlocking connector includes a second arm (any other of 34,36,44) configured to engage the female interlocking connector of the at least one other exterior wall section to form at least a portion of the seal therebetween (as noted in the figures and disclosure).
Claim 8. The exterior wall section of claim 7, wherein the female interlocking connector defines a channel (any one or all of 38,40,42) extending along the perimeter of the exterior wall section, the channel of the female interlocking connector being configured to receive first and second arms of the male interlocking connector of the at least one other exterior wall section (as seen in the figures).
Claim 10. The exterior wall section of claim 1, further comprising a weather strip (44) extending along the perimeter and disposed exteriorly of the interlocking structure, the weather strip being configured to operatively engage a perimeter of the at least one other exterior wall section (at 42) to inhibit a liquid from the outside environment from reaching the interlocking structure when the exterior wall sections are connected to the framework of the building.
Claim 11. The exterior wall section of claim 10, in combination with the at least one other exterior wall section (as seen in the figures and disclosure).
Claim 12. The exterior wall section of claim 1, wherein the interlocking structure is secured to the structural layer (as seen in the figures and noted in the disclosure; at least via 52).
Claim 13. The exterior wall section of claim 12, wherein the interlocking structure extends outward from the edge margins of the structural layer (as seen in the figures).
Claim 14. The exterior wall section of claim 1, further comprising a sheathing layer (26) mounted on an exterior face of the structural layer, the sheathing layer including one or more sheets of sheathing.
Claim 16. The exterior wall section of claim 14, further comprising a moisture barrier (24) mounted on an exterior side of the sheathing layer.
Claim 3,9,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glancy (20140090323) in view of EP0775786 and further in view of Kaminaga et al (5105593).
Claim 3. Glancy in view of EP0775786 discloses the exterior wall section of claim 2, but does not disclose that the interlocking structure extends along the entire perimeter of the exterior wall section. However it is known in the art to have wall section with interlocking structure that extends along the entire perimeter. For example Kaminaga discloses a wall section having an interlocking structure that extends along the entire perimeter of the wall section (as seen in the figures and disclosure). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the wall section of Glancy to have the interlocking structure along the entire perimeter to achieve the predictable result of a securely and connected and sealed wall section with adjacent wall sections on all sides of the wall section.
Claim 9. Glancy in view of EP0775786 discloses the exterior wall section of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose that the female interlocking connector includes first and second gaskets configured to engage the first and second arms, respectively, of the male interlocking connector of the at least one other exterior wall section. However it is known to have gaskets to engage arms of an interlocking structure. For example Kaminaga discloses an interlocking structure having an arm and a gasket engaged with the arm. At the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue known design options and modify the arms of Glancy to have gaskets engaged with them to achieve the predictable result of a secure and weatherproof sealing engagement.
Claim 18. Glancy in view of EP0775786 disclose the exterior wall section of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose a window, the structural layer, the insulation layer and the siding each including an opening aligned with the window. However it is known to have windows in exterior wall sections. For example Kaminaga discloses a wall section having a window (as seen in at least figure 5 and as noted in the disclosure) with a structural layer, an insulation layer and siding having an opening aligned with the window. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to pursue known design options and modify the wall section of Glancy in view of EP0775786 to have a window with the structural layer, the insulation slayer and the siding each including an opening aligned with the window to achieve the predictable result of a desired design aesthetic such as natural light in the interior and/or an exterior façade including windows.
Claims 15,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glancy (20140090323) in view of EP0775786 and further in view of Radoane (20110258944).
Claims 15,17. Glancy in view of EP0775786 disclose the exterior wall section of claims 14, 15, but do not expressly disclose that the sheet of sheathing is made from a magnesium oxide based material or that the insulation layer is mounted on an exterior side of the moisture barrier and the siding is mounted on an exterior side of the insulation layer. However it is known in the art to have wall sections with sheathing layers, insulation layers and a moisture barrier. For example Radoane discloses a wall section have those various layers (as noted in the figures and disclosure). At the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue known design options and modify the wall sections of Glancy in view of EP0775786 to have a sheathing layer, a moisture barrier mounted on an exterior side of the sheathing layer made from a magnesium oxide based material and insulation mounted on the exterior side of the moisture barrier and the siding mounted on the exterior side of the insulation to achieve predictable result of a weatherproof, weather resistant building structure; where applying different building material layers and techniques would be well within the general skill and common sense of one of ordinary skill in the art since building codes and practices vary by climate and location which influence the weatherproofing of a building. For example a building in the artic would require different weatherproofing layers and materials than a building in the tropics. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to pursue known design options and employ routine engineering to determine the desired layers and materials for weathersealing the building wall section. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the sheathing made from a magnesium oxide based material, 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. In the instant case it would have been obvious for at least the reason of providing weather resistance and durability.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN202227551.
Claim 20. CN202227551 discloses an exterior wall section forming a portion of an exterior wall of a building having a framework, the exterior wall section comprising
a structural frame made of components (04,05,01,02) including studs extending between a sill and a top plate (as noted throughout the translation), the structural frame having a perimeter extending along the length of the top plate, along the length of one of the studs at one end of the structural frame, along the length of the sill and along the length of another one of the studs at an opposite end of the structural frame, and
an extruded metal border (as noted in the annotated figure below and/or 08) extending around the perimeter of the structural frame and being connected to and supported by the structural frame, the extruded metal border being configured to sealingly mate with other exterior wall sections to form a water and air barrier (as noted in the figures and throughout the translation).
CN202227551 discloses that the components may be made from galvanized steel (see translation) but does not expressly disclose cold formed steel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the steel to be cold formed steel, 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. In the instant case it would have been obvious for at least the reason that cold formed steel has superior strength to weight ratios and faster manufacturing.
PNG
media_image1.png
492
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-8228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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.
JESSICA L. LAUX
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JESSICA L LAUX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635