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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The two cited Non-patent Literature pieces of prior art of the information disclosure statement filed 06/28/2024 have not been considered. Only one piece of non-patent literature prior art has been attached, and it does not appear to correspond to the citations in the information disclosure statement. 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).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the driven dowels and insulation must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1 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 recites the limitation "the installation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the form" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the term “sleeves/endings” is unclear in what type of component is required of the claim. The examiner will examine as best understood with sleeves being claimed, as the disclosure does not describe any type of ending component. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the intersection" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the longitudinal and transverse rods" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reinforced mesh" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, in line 5, it is unclear how the mesh is reinforced. The examiner will examine as best understood, with the mesh being the mesh previously established in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the location of the plastic sleeves/endings" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the location of the hinged façade brackets" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what comprises a hinged façade bracket as the bracket as shown in Fig. 3 does not appear to be hinged. The examiner will examine as best understood with a bracket capable of mounting a hinged façade panel. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plastic sleeves with fasteners" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the location of the driven dowels" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what comprises a driven dowel as the component has not been adequately described in the disclosure. The examiner will examine as best understood with the driven dowel one in the same as the driven fastener previously established in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the insulation" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pellicer, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0011024.
Regarding claim 1, Pellicer discloses a plug for a reinforced concrete panel characterized in that it is equipped with embedded parts (3) in the form of plastic (claim 5) cone-shaped sleeves/endings (see Fig. 13) formed at the intersection of the longitudinal and transverse rods (see Fig. 13) of the reinforced mesh, for fastening fasteners and driven fasteners (for example 21), and the location of the plastic sleeves/endings corresponds to the location of the hinged facade brackets (47) attached to the plastic sleeves with fasteners, and the location of the driven dowels (21) for fixing the insulation. The phrases “for the installation of a suspended facade,” “for fastening fasteners and driven fasteners,” and “for fixing the insulation” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
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