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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 10/01/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of all the claims in the subject application can be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because each species has features not required by all embodiments that would entail extensive search for each feature of each embodiment.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4-7 and 11-14 have been withdrawn. Currently, claims 1-3 and 8-10 are pending and examined below.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herbst et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,562,504).
Regarding claim 1, Herbst et al. discloses an extrusion profile bracket (28, Figs. 2 and 4) for mounting panels, comprising a mounting base (54); a first support leg (48) extending from the mounting base; and a brace (50) extending from the mounting base and spaced apart from the first support leg; the first support leg having a plurality of first support leg panel gripping teeth (68) extending from the first support leg toward the brace; the first support leg terminating in a first support foot (70) including a portion extending oppositely to the first support leg panel gripping teeth and away from the brace; the first support foot having a first locking heel (portion of 68 approximate 70) extending toward the brace and extending beyond termini of the first support leg panel gripping teeth (considered to be extending beyond in the vertical direction); the brace having a plurality of brace first panel gripping teeth (68 approximate 66) extending toward the first support leg panel gripping teeth; wherein the first support leg panel gripping teeth and the brace first panel gripping teeth are arranged in opposition to one another (Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 2, Herbst et al. discloses wherein the first support leg (48) comprises a first generally planar calf portion (portion of 48 along 68) that carries the first support leg panel gripping teeth and terminates in the first support foot; and a first curved thigh portion (curved portion intersecting 58 and 63, Fig. 4) extending between the first calf portion and the mounting base and having a convex curvature facing the brace.
Regarding claim 3, Herbst et al. discloses the convex curvature of the first thigh portion provides a resilient bias of the first calf portion toward the brace. The bracket is made of plastic and considered to be resilient and capable of having the calf portion bendable towards the brace with an appropriate force.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbst et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,562,504) in view of Libeiro et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0298338).
Regarding claim 8, Herbst et al. discloses a composite panel system (Figs. 2 and 5) comprising the extrusion profile bracket of claim 1 (28); and a first panel (12A); the first panel comprising a first panel facing (approximate 102) and a first panel mounting flange (104) depending generally orthogonally from an end of the first panel facing to form a first panel corner between the first panel facing and the first panel mounting flange; the first panel having a first panel inner surface facing toward the first support leg (48) and a first panel outer surface facing away from the first support leg; wherein the first panel mounting flange (104) is received between the first support leg (48) and the brace (50) and is gripped by the first support leg panel gripping teeth and the brace first panel gripping teeth; the first support foot (portion of 68 approximate 70) abuts the first panel facing on the first panel inner surface (Fig. 5). Herbst et al. does not disclose the first panel having a first panel notch formed in the first panel inner surface at the first panel corner and the first locking heel extends into the first panel notch to obstruct withdrawal of the first panel mounting flange from between the first support leg and the brace. However, Libreiro et al. teaches that it is known to have a composite panel system comprising a composite panel (108. Fig. 3A) having a notch (approximate 124) formed at a corner to help facilitate the bending of the panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a composite panel with notches to allow the bending of the panel. In addition, it would have been obvious to have a heel that was situated at the location of the notch to be interlocked within the notch when the panel is placed within the gripping teeth of the first support leg and the brace.
Regarding claim 9, Herbst et al. discloses wherein the first panel (12A) is a composite panel (Col. 4, lines 59-61). Herbst et al. discloses that the first panel may be composite material comprised of aluminum (Col. 4, lines 61-63), but does not disclose the first panel inner surface and the first panel outer surface are formed by respective first panel metal layers and wherein a first panel intermediate layer of filler is disposed between the first panel metal layers. However, Libreiro et al. teaches that it is known to have the composite panels (108, Fig. 3A) that are comprised of a first panel inner surface (140) and the first panel outer surface (136) are formed by respective first panel metal layers and wherein a first panel intermediate layer of filler (144) is disposed between the first panel metal layers (Fig. 3A, Para [0040]) to make the panel both durable and light. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a composite panel having metal layers situated on the exterior and lighter weight material in the interior side to create a panel that was durable and lightweight.
Regarding claim 10, Libreiro et al. further discloses wherein the first panel notch (approximate 124) extends entirely through the first panel metal layer forming the first panel inner surface and into the first panel intermediate layer of filler (Fig. 3A).
Conclusion
This is a Continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 18/462,873. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
/JAMES J BUCKLE JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights