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 § 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) 1-2, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moras, U.S. Patent 6,279,284 in view of White et al., U.S. Patent Application 2014/0325928 and McCarthy, U.S. Patent 8,667,765.
Regarding claim 1, Moras discloses an external wall system comprising: multiple wooden vertical frames (10; col. 2, lines 53-57) arranged at intervals; an outer board (20) provided on outer surfaces of the vertical frames; an outer thermal insulating material provided on an outer surface of the outer board (col. 3, lines 36-38); and an outer wall panel (32) provided on the vertical frames with multiple support members (30) between the outer wall panel and the vertical frames (see Fig. 1), wherein: the support members are fixed to the vertical frames with the outer board between the support members and the vertical frames (see Fig. 1), the outer thermal insulating material is disposed between the support members which are disposed at intervals (col. 3, lines 36-38), and the outer wall panel is disposed so as to extend over the support members (see Fig. 1), and the outer wall panel is supported by fasteners respectively provided on the support members (33, see Fig. 1), but does not disclose the multiple support members are wooden, the support members extending along respective of the vertical frames, nor the outer wall panel is supported by support brackets respectively provided on the support members. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the support members of a wood section, as wood material is already being utilized in the construction, and 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. White teaches furring/support elements (66) can be used in both a horizontal and a vertical orientation (see Figs. 6 and 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the support members vertically as the same results would be produced. The support members will then need to extend along the vertical frame members or studs in order to receive support and to function as intended. McCarthy teaches the use of brackets (100) for supporting an outer wall panel along a supporting member (Fig. 2, generally). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a bracket rather than a screw or nail depending on the weight of the outer wall panel member and the design loads for the application environment. Inner and outer are relative terms in the art and depend on a component/apparatus orientation.
Regarding claim 2, Moras discloses an external wall system further comprising: an inner board (13) provided on inner surfaces of the vertical frames; and an inner thermal insulating material (14) provided between the inner board and the outer board.
Regarding claim 7, Moras discloses a building comprising the outer wall of claim 1 (a residential building; col. 1, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 8, Moras discloses an external wall system but does not specifically disclose wherein an outer surface of the outer thermal insulating material and outer surfaces of the support members are flat surfaces flush with each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to insulate the entirety of the space between furring/support members, thereby having outer surfaces of the support members and outer surfaces of the insulation flush with one another, to provide maximum insulation in the wall system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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 Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights