DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a reply to the amendment filed on 2/13/2026. Currently, claims 1-7 and 10-14 are pending. Claims 8-9 have been cancelled. No claims have been withdrawn. No new claims have been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 2/18/2026 is being considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7 and 10-14 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 1, “a plurality of overlay face members” (line 5) is indefinite because the claim previously requires an overlay face member and it is unclear whether the limitation includes or does not include the previously recited overlay face member. As written, the limitation is drawn to a double inclusion. This rejection can be overcome by previously in the claim defining the overlay face member as comprising a plurality of overlay face member. See also claims 5 and 11.
Claim 1, “a pair of overlay face members” (line 7) is indefinite because the claim previously requires an overlay face member and a plurality of overlay face members. It is unclear whether the limitation includes or does not include any of the the previously recited overlay face members. As written, the limitation is drawn to a double inclusion. This rejection can be overcome by specifying in the claim that the pair of overlay face members is a pair of overlay face members of the plurality of overlay face members, or equivalent. See also claim 13.
Claim 1, “the overlay face member” (line 9) is indefinite because the claim previously recites, “an overlay face member” (singular – line 2), “a plurality of overlay face members” (plural – line 5) and “a pair of overlay face members” (plural – line 7) and it is unclear which of the overlay face members, if any the limitation is referring to in the claim. Applicant is requested to clarify. See also claims 2-3, 7 and 12.
Claim 1, “both sides of the first joint” (line 9) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent bases. Note that the claim does not previously define the first joint as having any sides, in particular. This rejection can be overcome by previously in the claim defining the first joint has having two sides, or a first side and a second side, or equivalent.
The remainder of claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected base claim.
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) 1-3 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2002364104 (‘JP ‘104’).
Claim 1, JP ‘104 provides a building wall provided with at least an underlay face member 2 and an overlay face member 3, the underlay face member directly or indirectly attached to a stud (“the [underlay face member] 2 is attached to the stud 10 with screws and/or an adhesive or the like”’ English translation), the overlay face member being an indoor-facing member (Fig. 1) and connected to the underlay face member (Fig. 1),
wherein a plurality of overlay face members 3 are installed with a first joint therebetween (joint 30 between respective ones of the overlay face members 3), and
wherein a pair of overlay face members (a pair of overlay face members 3), by which the first joint is interposed (said overlay face members 3 by which the first joint 30 is interposed), are connected together by a connecting member that straddles the first joint (connecting member 40 straddles the first joint at 30, between the overlay face members 3), the connecting member being extended over an indoor-side surface of the overlay face member on both sides of the first joint (the connecting member 40 is shown in Fig. 7B as having a ridge 42 with a first side being extended over an indoor-side surface of overlay face member 3 on an indoor-side surface thereof at a first side of the first joint, as the side surface of 3 nonetheless constitutes an indoor-side surface of the overlay face member 3; note that a second side of the ridge of the connecting member extends over a second side of the first joint; see annotated Fig. 7B of JP ‘104 shown below in Examiner’s Notes), and the connecting member being attached to a front surface of the underlay face member (via legs 41; Fig. 7B; see also annotated Fig. 7B).
Claim 2, JP ‘104 further provides wherein the connecting member has a first component 42 straddling the first joint on an indoor-side surface of the overlay face member (Figs. 7A-7B), and the first component is connected to an indoor-side surface of the overlay face member via a first bonding material (“an adhesive may be applied to the legs 41 and the legs 41 may be bonded to the boards”; English translation).
Claim 3, JP ‘104 further provides wherein the connecting member includes a first component 41 that straddles the first joint on a back surface of the overlay face member opposite to an indoor side of the overlay face member (Fig. 7B), and the first component is connected to the back surface via a first bonding material (“an adhesive may be applied to the legs 41 and the legs may be bonded to the boards 2 and 3”; English translation).
Claim 10, JP ‘104 further provides wherein the building wall is a partition wall (Fig. 1), and a face member unit (2, 3, 4) is installed on at least one surface of the stud, the face member unit including at least the plurality of said overlay face members and the underlay face member (Figs. 1-7B).
Claim 11, JP ‘104 further provides wherein the building wall is an indoor-side wall of an exterior wall (Fig. 1), and a face member unit (2, 3, 4) is installed on one surface of the stud (Figs. 1-7B), the face member unit including at least the plurality of said overlay face members and the underlay face member (Figs. 1-7B).
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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2002364104 (‘JP ‘104’) in view of JP H06212719 (‘JP ‘219’).
Claims 4-5, JP ‘104 further teaches [claim 4] wherein the first joint is a gapped joint (see 30 in Fig. 7B that has a gap between 3 left and 3 right), and the connecting member further includes a second component 41 fitted in the first joint (Figs. 7A-7B) and the second component is connected to the underlay face member (Figs. 7A-7B), and [claim 5] wherein a plurality of underlay face members are installed with a second joint therebetween (JP ‘104 joint between underlay face members 2; Figs. 2 and 5a), the second joint exposed to the gapped joint (Figs. 1-7B). JP ‘104 does not teach the second component connected to the underlay face member via a second bonding material, the second bonding material being provided at a position corresponding to the second joint. However, JP ‘219 teaches a connecting member 6 comprising a second component (6a; Figs. 2-4) installed in a second joint between two side portions 5c of face members 5a and fixed via second bonding material (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, element 11 constitutes a bonding material, since it joins the joining member to the face members and to element 4, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 2-4), the second bonding material being provided at a position corresponding to the second joint (Figs. 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to connect the second component to the underlay face member via a second bonding material, the second bonding material being provided at a position corresponding to the second joint exposed to the gapped joint, with the reasonable expectation of success of further securing the connecting member to the underlay face member using known means.
Claim 6, as modified above, the combination of JP ‘104 and JP ‘219 teaches all the limitations of claim 4, and further teaches wherein the connecting member is formed of a hat joiner (JP ‘104 under the broadest reasonable interpretation, element 40 is hat shaped and nonetheless constitutes a hat joiner, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 7B; see also the shape of 6 in JP ‘219) that is provided with two hat parts (JP ‘104 41; see also the shape of 6 in JP ‘219) and a protrusion (JP ‘104 42; see also JP ‘219 6a) connecting the two hat parts together (JP ‘104 Fig. 7B; JP ‘219 Fig. 3), the two hat parts are the first component (JP ‘104 Fig. 7B; JP ‘219 Fig. 3), and the protrusion is the second component (JP ‘104 Fig. 7B; JP ‘219 Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 7 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2002364104 (‘JP ‘104’) in view of JP 2002309691 (‘JP ‘691’).
Claim 7, JP ‘104 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. JP ‘104 does not teach a steel plate disposed between the overlay face member and the underlay face member, wherein the steel plate functions as a support base that supports, in a cantilever manner, a retrofit-type member that is retrofitted to an indoor-side that is located more inwardly than the overlay face member, the retrofit-type member including at least one of a handrail, a wall hanger, a backrest or an armrest. However, JP ‘691 teaches a steel plate (50, 60 or 70) disposed between an overlay face member 3 and an underlay face member 2 (Figs. 5-7), wherein the steel plate functions as a support base that supports, in a cantilever manner, a retrofit-type member (63, 73; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, elements 63 or 73 each constitute a retrofit-type member, as exceedingly broadly claimed) that is retrofitted to an indoor-side that is located more inwardly than the overlay face member (Figs. 6-7), the retrofit-type member including at least one of a handrail, a wall hanger, a backrest or an armrest (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, elements 63 and 73 are made of gypsum board and are suitable for use as a wall hanger or a backrest, as exceedingly broadly claimed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the building wall by incorporating a steel plate disposed between the overlay face member and the underlay face member, wherein the steel plate functions as a support base that supports, in a cantilever manner, a retrofit-type member that is retrofitted to an indoor-side that is located more inwardly than the overlay face member, the retrofit-type member including at least one of a handrail, a wall hanger, a backrest or an armrest, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means of a steel plate to support a retrofit-type member on the building wall.
Claim 12, JP ‘104 teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as above.
JP ‘104 does not teach a steel plate disposed between the overlay face member and the underlay face member, wherein the steel plate functions as a support base that supports, in a cantilever manner, a retrofit-type member that is retrofitted to an indoor-side that is located more inwardly than the overlay face member, the retrofit-type member including at least one of a handrail, a wall hanger, a backrest or an armrest. However, JP ‘691 teaches a steel plate (50, 60 or 70) disposed between an overlay face member 3 and an underlay face member 2 (Figs. 5-7), wherein the steel plate functions as a support base that supports, in a cantilever manner, a retrofit-type member (63, 73; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, elements 63 or 73 each constitute a retrofit-type member, as exceedingly broadly claimed) that is retrofitted to an indoor-side that is located more inwardly than the overlay face member (Figs. 6-7), the retrofit-type member including at least one of a handrail, a wall hanger, a backrest or an armrest (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, elements 63 and 73 are made of gypsum board and are suitable for use as a wall hanger or a backrest, as exceedingly broadly claimed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the building wall by incorporating a steel plate disposed between the overlay face member and the underlay face member, wherein the steel plate functions as a support base that supports, in a cantilever manner, a retrofit-type member that is retrofitted to an indoor-side that is located more inwardly than the overlay face member, the retrofit-type member including at least one of a handrail, a wall hanger, a backrest or an armrest, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means of a steel plate to support a retrofit-type member on the building wall.
Claim 13, as modified above, the combination of JP ‘104 and JP ‘691 teaches all the limitations of claim 12, and further teaches wherein the first component is the steel plate (JP ‘691 Figs. 5-7), and the steel plate has both a function of connecting the pair of overlay face members and a function of serving as the support base (JP ‘691; it is understood that the steel plate is suitable to connect the pair of overlay face members and be the support base, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 5-7).
Claim 14, as modified above, the combination of JP ‘104 and JP ‘691 teaches all the limitations of claim 13, and appears to further teach wherein an area of the steel plate is 40% or less a total area of the building wall (JP ‘691 Figs. 5-7). In the event that applicant disagrees that JP ‘691 teaches an area of the steel plate being 40% or less a total area of the building wall, the examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the steel plate having an area that is 40% or less a total area of the building wall, with the reasonable expectation of success of ensuring the building wall maintains fire resistance with the underlay and overlay face members, 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).
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
408
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7B of JP 2002364104 (‘JP ‘104’)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 10-14 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. Applicant’s arguments are respectfully drawn to the claims as amended.
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 JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635