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 .
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 29 is 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.
Regarding claim 29, the sentence is incomplete rendering it indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 16-23, 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Giles (US Pub. 2022/0412081 A1) in view of O’Leary (US Pub. 2017/0218635 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Giles discloses a supporting wall panel (Abstract, lines 1-2: “Foam wall structures and methods for making them are described”) comprising:
a frame provided with a plurality of vertical battens made from wood (Fig.1 members 14, 16), the vertical battens extending mainly in a vertical direction and a plurality of horizontal battens extending mainly in a horizontal direction (See Fig. 1), each vertical batten being fixed to at least two of the horizontal battens (Fig. 1, members 16 intersect with members 14), the frame defining a plurality of re-entrants (Fig. 1, areas between successive members 16);
a connecting plate (Fig. 3, foam panel 70) formed by a first mixture comprising a curable material (Abstract, lines 8-10: “The polyurethane foam layer is the cured reaction product of a polyurethane foam-forming composition that includes a polyisocyanate”), the connecting plate connecting all the vertical battens and all the horizontal battens (Fig. 3, foam panel 70 covers the entire frame);
wherein the connecting plate only partially and continuously overlaps the vertical battens only in a thickness direction that is perpendicular to the horizontal direction and perpendicular to the vertical direction (Fig. 1, foam panel 70 overlaps the members 14 and 16 and extends away perpendicularly from both);
and wherein the connecting plate has a shell arranged salient from the frame in the thickness direction and studs salient from the shell, the studs partially filling only the plurality of re-entrants (Fig. 3, foam layer 30 extends from foam panel 70).
However, Giles fails to disclose the connecting plate having a vertical compressive strength at least equal to 1 MPa. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct a connecting plate with a compressive strength of at least 1 MPa for adequate structural integrity, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Giles fails to disclose as taught by O’Leary, similarly drawn to a wall panel structure, a connecting plate formed by a first mixture comprising a curable material in which organic plant-derived elements are embedded (Pg. 7, [0078]: “Non-limiting examples of suitable reinforcing fibers that may be used in the structural layer 312 and/or the stucco adhesion layer 314 in the composite material include reinforcement glass fibers, wool glass fibers, natural fibers, cellulosic fibers, metal fibers, ceramic fibers, mineral fibers, carbon fibers, graphite fibers, nanofibers, or combinations thereof. The term "natural fiber," as used herein, refers to plant fibers extracted from any part of a plant, including, but not limited to, the stem, seeds, leaves, roots, or bast. In the composite material, the reinforcing fibers may have the same or different lengths, diameters, and/or denier. In one embodiment, the reinforcing fibers are glass fibers, although other fibers can be used”).
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 supporting wall panel of Giles to include the plant fibers of O’Leary for its thermal and acoustic insulating abilities as well as its renewability.
Furthermore, Giles as modified by O’Leary fails to disclose wherein the organic plant-derived elements represent at least 70% of the volume of the connecting plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the composition of plant fibers to be at least 70% of the volume of the connecting plate for improved insulation, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 17, Giles as modified by O’Leary discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Giles, wherein the connecting plate extends out from the frame over a distance at least equal to 6 cm (Pg. 9, [0098], lines 4-11: “In this manner, a gap 40 is formed within the frame 11 between a rear surface of the foam layer 30 and the rear frame surface 11b, In some embodiments, the gap 40 has a width, from the rear surface of the foam layer 30b to the rear frame surface 11b, of at least 1 inch (2.54 cm), such as 1 to 4.5 inches (2.54 to 11.43 cm), 1 to 2 inches (2.54 to 5.08 cm) or 1.5 to 2 inches (3.81 to 5.08 cm)”).
Regarding claim 18, Giles as modified by O’Leary discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Giles, wherein the connecting plate is fixed to the frame by means of a plurality of connectors (Fig. 3, fasteners 92).
Regarding claim 19, Giles as modified by O’Leary discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Giles, wherein the connecting plate is fixed directly to all the vertical battens (See Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Giles as modified by O’Leary discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Giles, wherein the connecting plate is fixed directly to all the horizontal battens (See id).
Regarding claim 21, Giles as modified by O’Leary discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Giles, wherein each connector has a salient area located at a distance from the frame, the salient area being embedded in the connecting plate (Fig. 3, fasteners 92 extend outwardly from the from and the head of the fastener is located within the foam panel 70).
Regarding claim 22, Giles as modified by O’Leary discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Giles, wherein a thickness of the shell is at least equal to 5cm (Pg. 4, [0044], lines 29-32: “In some embodiments, the foam panels described herein have a thickness of no more than 2 inches (5.08 cm), such as a thickness of 1 to 2 inches (2.54 to 5.08 cm) or 1 to 1.5 inches (2.54 cm to 3.81 cm)”).
Regarding claim 23, Giles as modified by O’Leary discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Giles, wherein the studs extend over at least 25% of the depth of the re-entrant and no more than 50% of the depth of the re-entrant (Fig. 3, fasteners 92 appear to extend half-way through the re-entrant).
Regarding claim 25, Giles as modified by O’Leary discloses the claimed invention except for an additional frame fixed to the frame and separated from the connecting plate by the frame, the additional frame only comprising horizontal battens, a facing plate being fixed to the additional frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an additional frame to increase the total thickness of the wall portion, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 26, Giles as modified by O’Leary discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Giles, wherein one of the horizontal battens forms a bottom wall plate, the wall panel being pressing on the bottom wall plate (Fig. 1, the bottom member 14 forms a bottom wall plate which the frame rests on. The rest of the wall panel is attached to this bottom wall plate).
Regarding claim 27, Giles as modified by O’Leary discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Giles, wherein one of the horizontal battens forms a top wall plate extending continuously from one end of the connecting plate to the other (Fig. 1, the top member 14 forms the top wall of the frame).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Giles (US Pub. 2022/0412081 A1) in view of O’Leary (US Pub. 2017/0218635 A1), and further in view of Malinowski (US Pub. 2022/0205242 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Giles as modified by O’Leary discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Malinowski, similarly drawn to a wall construction system, wherein the re-entrant is filled by a thermal insulation plate (Fig. 1A, insulation 108).
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 wall panel of Giles as modified by O’Leary to comprise the thermal insulation plate of Malinowski for improved thermal insulation of the wall member.
Furthermore, Giles as modified by O’Leary and Malinowski fails to disclose a thermal insulation plate that presents a thermal resistivity over density ratio at least four times higher than the thermal resistivity over density ratio of the material forming the connecting plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select an insulation with the prescribed thermal resistivity to allow it to adequately insulate the interior space, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Giles (US Pub. 2022/0412081 A1) in view of O’Leary (US Pub. 2017/0218635 A1), and further in view of Harvey (US Pub. 2016/0069063 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Giles as modified by O’Leary discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Harvey, similarly drawn to a prefabricated modular reinforced building system, wherein the connecting plate extends beyond the top wall plate in the vertical direction (Fig. 2, skin panel 118 extends above the highest cross bar).
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 connecting plate of Giles as modified by O’Leary to extend above the top wall plate so as to ensure full coverage of the wall.
Regarding claim 29, Giles as modified by O’Leary and Harvey discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Giles and Harvey, wherein a slab is placed on the top wall plate (Harvey, Fig. 18, roof assembly 300), and wherein a second wall panel (Giles, Pg. 10, [0102]: “In cases where the wall structure 10 comprises two or more foam panels 70 adjacent with one another, a sealant, such as a tape ( or other sealant material, such as a liquid sealer) can be applied to front surfaces of the foam panels 70 and over seams formed at adjacent sides of two foam panels 70”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 30 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642