DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/680,400. Receipt of the Response to the Election/Restriction required filed on 04/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 7-20 are examined.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Canada on 05/23/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Canadian application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/13/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the first NPL document fails to include a publication date with at least a year of publication. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein, where noted, has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/20/2026. However, such arguments are considered unpersuasive. Applicant argues that no serious burden would be on the Examiner because of the amendments to claim 1 now defining the method is for forming the corner assembly of claim 7; however, such a method would still be considered restrictable relative to the elected product claims since the product can be formed by a materially different method, such as by being molded with such beveled edges thereon instead of being cut from a larger sized panel and thus such a step of cutting, and any other steps associated with the processing of such a panel, would require a different field of search that would present a serious search burden. Therefore, the restriction requirement is considered proper and the restriction is considered final.
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.
Claims 15-20 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.
Claim 15 defines “the overlying section of the second panel section is superposable to the underlying section of the first panel section with a corresponding profile,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what scope is covered by such limitations. Do such limitations define that the overlying section of the second panel section is configured to insert and cover the underlying section of the first panel section of the same corner assembly or do such limitations define that the corresponding profile is of an adjacent panel which comprises the same underlying structure as the first panel section? For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, claim 15 is considered to define that the overlying section of the second panel section comprises of a structure that is configured to engage a corresponding profile of an adjacent panel which comprises the same underlying section of the first panel section.
Claim 16 defines the corner assembly of claim 7 is included therein but later goes on to define “the second lateral edges of the corner assembly are rectilinear,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since such limitations define that such second lateral edges of the corner assembly are both non-rectilinear and rectilinear and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to make an edge that is both rectilinear and non-rectilinear. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, claim 16 is considered to define that the entire second lateral edge is non-rectilinear but can be formed by a plurality of rectilinear lines to form the rectangular notches and protrusions as depicted and disclosed. Moreover, claims 17-20 are rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 16.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 defines such second lateral edges of the corner assembly are rectilinear when claim 7, from which claim 16 depends from, already defines such edges as being non-rectilinear and thus does not properly refer back to such a claim or include each and every limitation of such a claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Moreover, claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for depending upon claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aufderheide (U.S. Patent 1,886,363).
Regarding claim 7, Aufderheide discloses a corner assembly comprising:
a first panel section (the left panel #1 of figures 1 and 3) having 3D simulated building elements (#6) on a front surface (see figures 1 and 3) thereof and a rectilinear beveled edge (#4) on a first lateral side and a second nonrectilinear lateral edge (edge with notches #2), opposed to the first lateral edge (see figure 1); and
a second panel section (the right panel #1 of figures 1 and 3) having 3D simulated building elements (#6) on a front surface thereof (see figures 1 and 3) and a rectilinear beveled edge (#4) on a first lateral side abutted against and secured to the rectilinear beveled edge of the first panel section in a corner configuration (see figure 3, where the beveled lateral sides are held together through the fasteners #14 that extend through the panels and into the sub-structure to fasten such edges to one another) defining a non-zero degree angle (see figure 3);
wherein a pattern of the 3D simulated building elements of the first and the second panel sections is continuous over the corner assembly (see figure 1, where the pattern of building elements #6 extends over the corner so as to continuously form such a pattern throughout the system).
Regarding claim 10, Aufderheide discloses each one of the 3D simulated building elements comprises a protruding surface (the protruding surface of element #6 which protrudes to form gaps #8 between adjacent elements #6), each one of the first panel section and the second panel section includes a plurality of rows of the 3D simulated building elements (see figures 1 and 6) and each one of the rows includes a plurality of horizontally adjacent ones of the 3D simulated building elements (see figures 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 11, Aufderheide discloses a corner assembly comprising:
a first panel section (the left panel #1 of figures 1 and 3) having 3D simulated building elements (#6) on a front surface (see figures 1 and 3) thereof and a rectilinear beveled edge (#4) on a first lateral side and an underlaying section, free of 3D simulated building elements (the section with notches #2 is considered free of such building elements #6), in a lateral edge region (edge with notches #2) adjacent to a second lateral edge (see figure 1); and
a second panel section (the right panel #1 of figures 1 and 3) having 3D simulated building elements (#6) on a front surface thereof (see figures 1 and 3) and a rectilinear beveled edge (#4) on a first lateral side abutted against and secured to the rectilinear beveled edge of the first panel section in a corner configuration (see figure 3, where the beveled lateral sides are held together through the fasteners #14 that extend through the panels and into the sub-structure to fasten such edges to one another) defining a non-zero degree angle (see figure 3), the second panel section having an overlying section (the section at the edge with projecting building elements #3), in a lateral edge region adjacent to a second lateral edge (see figure 1);
wherein a pattern of the 3D simulated building elements of the first and the second panel sections is continuous over the corner assembly (see figure 1, where the pattern of building elements #6 extends over the corner so as to continuously form such a pattern throughout the system).
Regarding claim 14, Aufderheide discloses each one of the 3D simulated building elements comprises a protruding surface (the protruding surface of element #6 which protrudes to form gaps #8 between adjacent elements #6), each one of the first panel section and the second panel section includes a plurality of rows of the 3D simulated building elements (see figures 1 and 6) and each one of the rows includes a plurality of horizontally adjacent ones of the 3D simulated building elements (see figures 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 15, Aufderheide discloses the overlying section of the second panel section is superposable to the underlying section of the first panel section with a corresponding profile (as depicted in figures 1 and 6, the overlying sections #3 of each respective panel is to fit and be superposable over the notches #2 of an adjacent panel).
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) 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kownacki (U.S. Patent 8,322,103) in view of Aufderheide and Trabue et al. (U.S. Patent 8,074,417).
Regarding claim 7, Kownacki discloses a corner assembly comprising:
a first panel section (the right half panel section of the corner panel of figure 4) having 3D simulated building elements on a front surface thereof (see figure 4) and a nonrectilinear lateral edge (the edge with notches #38c and #38d), opposed to a first lateral edge (the corner edge of such a section); and
a second panel section (the left half panel section of the corner panel of figure 4) having 3D simulated building elements on a front surface thereof (see figure 4) and a first lateral side abutted against and secured to the first lateral edge of the first panel section (see figure 4, where the panel sections are integrally formed and thus comprise of abutted edges secured to one another) defining a non-zero degree angle (the 90 degree angle as depicted in figure 4);
wherein a pattern of the 3D simulated building elements of the first and second panel sections is continuous over the corner assembly (see figure 4, where the pattern of bricks extends over the corner and continuous on both sides of the corner).
However, Kownacki discloses the corner panel is formed as a single integral piece of material rather than from two panels with beveled edges secured to one another. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Aufderheide, that such exterior panels for a wall veneer can be constructed by mitering edges #4 of two panels #1 so as to form an exterior corner when two panels #1 abut one another. See figures 1 and 3. Furthermore, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Trabue et al., that such wall veneer panels with 3D patterns can be constructed from polymer material, where the elements of such panels, such as upper rails #30, can be integrally molded into the panel or can be separately attached, such as through welding. See col. 4, ll. 27-30. Applicant provides a known method of separately forming such a corner assembly with two elements which are then joined together instead of integrally molded out of a single piece of material, where both of such methods do not provide any unexpected results and would yield the same predictable result of a corner assembly element for a wall covering. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the corner panel of Kownacki out of two panel sections with beveled edges, which edges are secured to one another, as taught in Aufderheide and Trabue et al., since forming the element out of a single piece of material or two pieces secured to one another would have yielded the same predictable result of a complete, one piece corner panel for attachment to an exterior wall and also since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (2007); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 (1969).
As a note, Kownacki is considered to disclose a polymer panel which comprises of a filler of up to 60% gypsum and high-density polymers which is configured to be welded using the same plastic welding method of Trabue et al. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Kownacki as comprising of a polymer molded panel, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Trabue et al., that such panels are constructed from polymers in order to form a cost-effective, lightweight, yet durable wall covering and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also construct such a panel of Kownacki out of a polymer, as taught in Trabue et al., in order to form a durable yet lightweight and cost-effective panel for use and also 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 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 8, Kownacki in view of Aufderheide and Trabue et al. render obvious the first panel section and the second panel section are welded together along the rectilinear beveled edges (Trabue et al. teach the obviousness of using welding to attach polymer elements of a panel to one another, where it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used welding to attach the separate panel sections of the prior art to one another in order to form a single, integral element, where integrally molding and welding pieces to one another are known substitutes to yield the same predictable result of forming a one piece corner assembly as needed).
Regarding claim 9, Kownacki in view of Aufderheide and Trabue et al. render obvious the first panel section and the second panel section are obtained by cutting a polymeric-based wall covering panel at a cut location with a bevel cut and abutting beveled edges of the first panel section and the second panel section against one another (In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the corner assembly formed with beveled edges secured to one another, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the beveled edges are cut. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the present case, Kownacki, or Kownacki in view of Trabue et al., is considered to disclose a polymer panel, as explained above in the rejection of claim 7, with beveled edges, as taught by the mitering in Aufderheide, and secured together, as taught in Trabue et al., in order to form the final corner assembly as defined.).
Regarding claim 10, Kownacki in view of Aufderheide and Trabue et al. render obvious each one of the 3D simulated building elements comprises a protruding surface (the protruding simulated brick surface as depicted in Kownacki), each one of the first panel section and the second panel section includes a plurality of rows of the 3D simulated building elements and each one of the rows includes a plurality of horizontally adjacent ones of the 3D simulated building elements (figure 4 of Kownacki depicts a plurality of rows of such 3D protruding elements can be formed, where Aufderheide teaches the obviousness of providing a plurality of such protruding simulated building elements in each row on each side of the corner assembly as depicted in figure 1 to provide the aesthetics as needed by the end user).
Regarding claim 11, Kownacki discloses a corner assembly comprising:
a first panel section (the left half panel section of the corner panel of figure 4) having 3D simulated building elements on a front surface thereof (see figure 4) and an underlying section (the underlying extending portions #38 at the left lateral edge of figure 4 which is to be overlapped by an adjacent panel) free of 3D simulated building elements (the portions #38 are flat and extend from the bottom of such 3D simulated building elements so as to be free of such simulated building elements and to be overlaid by an adjacent panel), in a lateral edge region adjacent to a second lateral edge (see figure 4); and
a second panel section (the right half panel section of the corner panel of figure 4) having 3D simulated building elements on a front surface thereof (see figure 4) and a first lateral side abutted against and secured to a first lateral edge of the first panel section (see figure 4, where the panel sections are integrally formed and thus comprise of abutted edges secured to one another) defining a non-zero degree angle (the 90 degree angle as depicted in figure 4), the second panel section having an overlying section (#36), including a portion of the 3D simulated building elements (sections #36 have 3D simulated portions #31b and #31d thereabove in order to overlay an adjacent panel);
wherein a pattern of the 3D simulated building elements of the first and second panel sections is continuous over the corner assembly (see figure 4, where the pattern of bricks extends over the corner and continuous on both sides of the corner).
However, Kownacki discloses the corner panel is formed as a single integral piece of material rather than from two panels with beveled edges secured to one another. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Aufderheide, that such exterior panels for a wall veneer can be constructed by mitering edges #4 of two panels #1 so as to form an exterior corner when two panels #1 abut one another. See figures 1 and 3. Furthermore, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Trabue et al., that such wall veneer panels with 3D patterns can be constructed from polymer material, where the elements of such panels, such as upper rails #30, can be integrally molded into the panel or can be separately attached, such as through welding. See col. 4, ll. 27-30. Applicant provides a known method of separately forming such a corner assembly with two elements which are then joined together instead of integrally molded out of a single piece of material, where both of such methods do not provide any unexpected results and would yield the same predictable result of a corner assembly element for a wall covering. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the corner panel of Kownacki out of two panel sections which have beveled edges, which edges are secured to one another, as taught in Aufderheide and Trabue et al., since forming the element out of a single piece of material or two elements secured to one another would have yielded the same predictable result of a complete, one piece corner panel and also since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (2007); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 (1969).
As a note, Kownacki is considered to disclose a polymer panel which comprises of a filler of up to 60% gypsum and high-density polymers which are configured to be welded using the same plastic welding method of Trabue et al. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Kownacki as comprising of a polymer molded panel, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Trabue et al., that such panels are constructed from polymers in order to form a cost-effective, lightweight, yet durable wall covering and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also construct such a panel of Kownacki out of a polymer, as taught in Trabue et al., in order to form a durable yet lightweight and cost-effective panel for use and also 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 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 12, Kownacki in view of Aufderheide and Trabue et al. render obvious the first panel section and the second panel section are welded together along the rectilinear beveled edges (Trabue et al. teach the obviousness of using welding to attach polymer elements of a panel to one another, where it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used welding to attach the separate panel sections of the prior art to one another in order to form a single, integral element, where integrally molding and welding pieces to one another are known substitutes to yield the same predictable result of forming a corner assembly as needed).
Regarding claim 13, Kownacki in view of Aufderheide and Trabue et al. render obvious the first panel section and the second panel section are obtained by cutting a polymeric-based wall covering panel at a cut location with a bevel cut and abutting beveled edges of the first panel section and the second panel section against one another (In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the corner assembly formed with beveled edges secured to one another, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the beveled edges are cut. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the present case, Kownacki, or Kownacki in view of Trabue et al., is considered to disclose a polymer panel, as explained above in the rejection of claim 7, which comprise of beveled edges, as taught by the miter cuts in Aufderheide, and secured together, as taught in Trabue et al., in order to form the final, single piece corner assembly as defined.).
Regarding claim 14, Kownacki in view of Aufderheide and Trabue et al. render obvious each one of the 3D simulated building elements comprises a protruding surface (the protruding simulated brick surface as depicted in Kownacki), each one of the first panel section and the second panel section includes a plurality of rows of the 3D simulated building elements and each one of the rows includes a plurality of horizontally adjacent ones of the 3D simulated building elements (figure 4 of Kownacki depicts a plurality of rows of such 3D protruding elements can be formed, where Aufderheide teaches the obviousness of providing a plurality of such protruding simulated building elements in each row on each side of the corner assembly as depicted in figure 1 for aesthetic purposes).
Regarding claim 15, Kownacki in view of Aufderheide and Trabue et al. render obvious the overlying section of the second panel section is superposable to the underlying section of the first panel section with a corresponding profile (see figures 2A and 4 of Kownacki, where the overlying portion of one panel is configured to overly an underlying section of an adjacent panel).
Regarding claim 16, Kownacki in view of Aufderheide and Trabue et al. render obvious a kit for covering a support surface, the kit comprising:
the corner assembly as explained above in the rejection of claim 7, the corner assembly having a rear surface (the surface extending out of the page of figure 5 of Kownacki), opposed to the front surface (see figure 4 of Kownacki);
at least two polymeric-based wall covering panels (the panels #30 of Kownacki are considered constructed from polymers, or would have been obvious to have constructed from polymers in view of Trabue et al. as explained above in the rejection of claim 7) having a 3D simulated building elements (Kownacki; #37) on a front surface thereof (see figure 2A of Kownacki), each one of the at least two polymeric-based wall covering panels having opposed lateral edges (the left and right edges of figure 2A of Kownacki) and a rear surface (the rear surface facing the structure #11 as depicted in figure 2A of Kownacki), opposed to the front surface (see figure 2A of Kownacki); and
at least one elongated bracket (Kownacki; #40 and/or 50) engageable with horizontally adjacent ones of the at least two polymeric-based wall covering panels (see figure 2A of Kownacki) and the corner assembly from the rear surfaces thereof (see figures 1, 2A, and 2B of Kownacki);
wherein at least two of the lateral edges of the at least two polymeric-based wall covering panels and the second lateral edges of the corner assembly are rectilinear (see figures 2A, 3, and 4 of Kownacki, which depict the lateral edges that are to engage one another comprise of a plurality of straight lines to form rectangular brick shaped projections and notches and thus form a rectilinear edge) and juxtaposable against one another in a horizontally-adjacent configuration (see figure 1 of Kownacki) and the at least one elongated bracket being engageable with the rear surfaces thereof to maintain the juxtaposed and horizontally-adjacent configuration (see figures 1, 2A, ad 2B of Kownacki).
Regarding claim 17, Kownacki in view of Aufderheide and Trabue et al. render obvious in the horizontally-adjacent configuration, the 3D simulated building elements of the at least two polymeric-based wall covering panels forms a continuous pattern (see figure 1 of Kownacki and figure 1 of Aufderheide).
Regarding claim 18, Kownacki in view of Aufderheide and Trabue et al. render obvious the 3D simulated building elements form elongated ribs on the rear surfaces (the ribs can be considered the top and bottom ribs formed by the top and bottom rows of bricks #37 of such panels and which ribs project from the rear surface thereof as depicted in figure 2B of Kownacki), the at least two of the lateral edges of the corner assembly have aligned elongated ribs at a junction thereof and the at least one elongated bracket is crimpable over the aligned elongated ribs (see figure 2B of Kownacki, where the bracket #40 is crimpable over the bottom projection of such ribs of adjacent panels of the assembly, such as through a snap fit connection which crimps the edges of a channel formed by the bracket over the aligned ribs).
Regarding claim 19, Kownacki in view of Aufderheide and Trabue et al. render obvious the at least one elongated bracket comprises longitudinal edges (the top and bottom edges of bracket #50 of figure 6 of Kownacki) and teeth (Kownacki; #58c) protruding from at least one of the longitudinal edges (the bottom edge as depicted in figure 6 of Kownacki), the teeth being insertable in the elongated ribs when the at least one elongated bracket is crimped to the aligned elongated ribs (the teeth are configured to be inserted around and into recesses/channels formed by the elongated top ribs of the panels of Kownacki so as to allow the teeth to be crimped thereto, such as through a snap fit connection which crimps the teeth and other portions of the bracket to such ribs).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kownacki in view of Aufderheide, Trabue et al., and Calfeutrage (Calfeutrage Apex, Silicone Sealant, https://calfeutrageapex.com/silicone-sealant-vs-different-types-of-sealants/ (05/06/2021 obtained from https://web.archive.org/web/20210506125243/https://calfeutrageapex.com/silicone-sealant-vs-different-types-of-sealants/).
Regarding claim 20, Kownacki in view of Aufderheide and Trabue et al. render the claimed invention obvious except for a thermoplastic sealant applicable at a junction of the rectilinear lateral edges to fill gaps in-between. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice, as evidenced by Calfeutrage, that thermoplastic caulking/sealant is highly well known and used for exterior purposes to seal gaps and prevent water and debris entry into a building. See pages 7 and 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the kit of Kownacki to comprise of a thermoplastic sealant, as taught in Calfeutrage, in order to be able to seal any gaps or window/door frames/openings formed within exterior cladding of such an assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 D 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights