DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/680,400. Receipt of the amendments and arguments required filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, 14, and 16-21 are pending.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 5, 12, and 15 is cancelled.
Claims 7-11, 13, 14, and 16-21 are examined.
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 16-20 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 16 defines the corner assembly of claim 7 is included therein but later goes on to define “the second lateral edge of the second polymeric-based panel section of the corner assembly are rectilinear and juxtaposable against one another,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since claim 7 defines the first lateral side of the second panel section is to abut against the rectilinear edge of the first panel section and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether both lateral sides of the second panel section are to be rectilinear and configured to abut the lateral edge of the first panel section or whether such limitations refer back to the first lateral edge of the second panel section. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what other element the second lateral edge of the second panel section is to be juxtaposble against. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, claim 16 is considered to refer back to the first lateral edge of the second panel section, which is juxtaposable relative to the beveled edge of the first lateral side of the first panel section. Moreover, claims 17-20 are rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 16.
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) 7-11, 13, 14, 16-19, and 21 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 polymeric-based panel section (the right half panel section of the corner panel of figure 4, where col. 3, ll. 10-14 disclose such panels are high-density polymer based) having 3D simulated building elements on a front surface thereof (see figure 4), elongated ribs protruding rearwardly and extending substantially parallel to longitudinal edges of the first polymeric-based panel section, between adjacent rows of the 3D simulated building elements (the ribs can be considered the horizontal rib elements extending perpendicular to the vertical ribs #37a, where such horizontal ribs extend parallel to the top and bottom longitudinal edges of the panel section and between the rows of 3D simulated elements), 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 polymer-based panel section (the left half panel section of the corner panel of figure 4, where col. 3, ll. 10-14 disclose such panels are high-density polymer based) having 3D simulated building elements on a front surface thereof (see figure 4), elongated ribs protruding rearwardly and extending substantially parallel to longitudinal edges of the first polymeric-based panel section, between adjacent rows of the 3D simulated building elements (the ribs can be considered the horizontal rib elements extending perpendicular to the vertical ribs #37a, where such horizontal ribs extend parallel to the top and bottom longitudinal edges of the panel section and between the rows of 3D simulated elements), 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 the elongated ribs of the first polymeric-based panel section are aligned with a respective one of the elongated ribs of the second polymeric-based panel section at a junction of the first and second polymeric-based panel sections (see figure 5);
wherein a pattern of the 3D simulated building elements of the first and the second polymeric-based 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-based 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-based 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-based material, 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 polymeric-based panel section and the second polymeric-based 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 polymeric-based panel section and the second polymeric-based 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), and each one of the rows of the 3D simulated building elements 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 polymeric-based panel section (the right half panel section of the corner panel of figure 4, where col. 3, ll. 10-14 disclose such panels are high-density polymer based) having 3D simulated building elements on a front surface thereof (see figure 4), elongated ribs protruding rearwardly and extending substantially and at least partially along an outline of a respective one of the 3D simulated building elements (the ribs can be considered the horizontal rib elements extending perpendicular to the vertical ribs #37a, where such horizontal ribs extend parallel to the top and bottom longitudinal edges of the panel section and between the rows of 3D simulated elements so as to be at least partially along an outline of such 3D simulated building elements), 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 polymer-based panel section (the left half panel section of the corner panel of figure 4, where col. 3, ll. 10-14 disclose such panels are high-density polymer based) having 3D simulated building elements on a front surface thereof (see figure 4), elongated ribs protruding rearwardly and extending substantially and at least partially along an outline of a respective one of the 3D simulated building elements (the ribs can be considered the horizontal rib elements extending perpendicular to the vertical ribs #37a, where such horizontal ribs extend parallel to the top and bottom longitudinal edges of the panel section and between the rows of 3D simulated elements so as to be at least partially along an outline of such 3D simulated building elements), 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), wherein the elongated ribs of the first polymeric-based panel section are abutted against a respective one of the elongated ribs of the second polymeric-based panel section at a junction of the first and the second polymeric-based panel sections (see figure 5), the second polymeric-based 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 through welding. 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 through welding, 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 polymeric-based 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 polymeric-based 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 13, Kownacki in view of Aufderheide and Trabue et al. render obvious the first polymeric-based panel section and the second polymeric-based 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 polymeric-based panel section and the second polymeric-based 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 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 edge of the second polymeric-based panel section 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).
Regarding claim 21, Kownacki in view of Aufderheide and Trabue et al. render obvious each one of the elongated ribs of the first and second polymeric-based panel sections correspond to a respective one of the simulated building elements defined on the front surface and is substantially and at least partially aligned with a contour of the respective one of the simulated building elements (see figure 5 of Kownacki, where the horizontal ribs extend between rows of the simulated elements so as to align with the rows and form the spaces therebetween).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues that Kownacki discloses a molded, integral panel rather than separate panel sections joined to one another, which was the reason for the 103 type rejection provided by the Examiner.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the present case, whether the panels are integrally molded as a single piece of material or cut and welded together to form a single piece would yield the same predictable result of a corner panel that forms a 90 degree angle. Trabue et al. teach 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, thus teaching the concept that polymer panels would yield the same predictable end result whether the polymer material is molded or welded together to form the integral panel assembly. See col. 4, ll. 27-30. Furthermore, KSR held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Applicant applies the known technique of cutting two panels at an angle and welding such panels together to form a single corner panel section, where Trabue et al. teach such a method of joining two panels to one another is known and is an obvious alternative to integrally molding such panels and Aufderheide teaches that known rectangular panels can be cut and abut with one another to form such a corner panel as needed. Such a method of forming corner sections with panels is thus known and common in the art to yield the predictable result of an integral corner section that forms the corner of an outer wall assembly, thus rendering such features obvious. The rejections are thus considered proper and are upheld.
Conclusion
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 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