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 3 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the elongate aperture" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Corden, US 6,612,090.
Regarding claims 1 and 19:
Corden discloses a covering element support arrangement and method of constructing the arrangement for attaching covering elements to a building and/or a building component for forming at least a soffit of the building – that is, the covering element support arrangement could form a soffit, the covering element support arrangement comprising a carrier means for receiving covering elements thereon, the carrier means comprising a metal plate comprising a plurality of apertures disposed thereon for being engaged by mechanical fastening means for fixing the covering elements to the carrier means, wherein the plurality of apertures are arranged in a predetermined bond pattern, wherein the covering element support arrangement does not comprise a backing member formed from cementitious material or composite material.
PNG
media_image1.png
674
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2:
Corden discloses wherein the plurality of apertures are elongate apertures.
Regarding claim 3:
Corden discloses wherein the elongate apertures comprise a major axis, wherein the major axes of at least some of the elongate apertures are oriented in a longitudinal direction of the metal plate of the carrier means.
Regarding claim 4:
Corden disclose wherein at least some of the plurality of apertures are arranged in a row extending longitudinally along the metal plate, wherein the apertures arranged in a row are generally spaced apart of a longitudinal dimension of the metal plate.
Regarding claim 5:
Corden discloses wherein at least some of the plurality of apertures are arranged in a plurality of rows extending longitudinally along the metal plate, wherein the apertures of each row are generally spaced apart over a longitudinal dimension of the metal plate and wherein the plurality of rows are generally spaced apart from one another over a width dimension of the metal plate.
*The apertures may reasonably be considered three rows of two or two rows of three.
Regarding claim 6:
Corden discloses wherein at least some of the apertures are located adjacent two opposing longitudinal edge portions of the metal plate (near the edges).
Regarding claim 7:
Corden discloses wherein the apertures located adjacent to two opposing longitudinal edge portions of the metal plate are elongate apertures having a major axis (left to right in Fig. 1), wherein the major axes of the apertures are oriented in a widthwise direction of the metal plate.
Regarding claims 8 and 9:
Corden clearly discloses wherein less than 50% of the carrier means is open (refer to Fig. 1) and wherein between 1 and 20% of the carrier means is open.
Claims 1 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coyle, US 2021/0032873.
Regarding claim 1:
Coyle clearly discloses a covering element support arrangement for attaching covering elements (3) to a building and/or a building component that may be used to form at least a soffit of the building, the covering element support arrangement comprising a carrier means for receiving covering elements thereon, the carrier means comprising a metal plate (2, refer to Fig. 10) comprising a plurality of apertures (10) disposed thereon for being engaged by mechanical fastening means for fixing the covering elements to the carrier means, wherein the plurality of apertures are arranged in a predetermined bond pattern (honeycomb pattern, refer to Fig. 10 and para. 0299), wherein the covering element support arrangement does not comprise a backing member formed from cementitious material or a composite material.
Regarding claim 12:
Coyle discloses comprising an attachment means for attaching the covering elements (para. 0299 – “apertures or perforations for receiving both adhesive and fixing elements”) to the carrier means, the attachment means comprising the mechanical fastening means (4, 5a, 5b, para. 0295), wherein the mechanical fastening means are engageable with the plurality of apertures and the covering elements to fix the covering element to the carrier means.
Regarding claim 13:
Coyle discloses wherein the mechanical fastening means comprises at least one bracket (9) engageable with two adjacent covering elements for fixing the adjacent covering elements to the carrier means (claim 2 of Coyle)
Regarding claim 14:
Coyle discloses the limitations of this claim in claim 3.
Regarding claim 15:
Coyle discloses the limitations of this claim in claim 6.
Regarding claim 16:
Coyle discloses the limitations of this claim in claim 7.
Regarding claim 17:
Coyle discloses the limitations of this claim in claim 8.
Regarding claim 18:
Coyle discloses the limitations of is claim in claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corden, US 6,612,090.
Regarding claims 10 and 11:
Corden does not specify the length of the apertures or the distance between them.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to vary the size and distance between apertures, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). There would be no unexpected or unpredictable result obtained from changing these dimensions. There is no evidence that the claimed dimensions not specifically taught by Corden provide a criticality that would be unachievable and unexpected with a reasonable amount of experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the covering element of Corden is identified as a display panel, this does not negate Corden anticipating the claimed structure. The apertures of Corden could readily be used to add additional structure. Further, the structure could be used to form a soffit. The soffit is not positively recited by the claims and there is nothing about the structure of Corden that would render it incapable of forming a soffit of a building. Applicant’s argument that the lugs do not provide sufficient retaining force, the lugs are not germane to the anticipatory rejection. If used as a soffit structure, the structure could be welded or otherwise reinforced.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Coyle, US 2021/0032873, published February 4, 2021 does not qualify as prior art because it shares the same inventor and assignee as the instant application, the instant application has an effective filing date of 7/14/23 from foreign application GB 2310880. The prior art of Coyle was published more than a year to the filing date of the instant application. It qualifies as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Coyle discloses a backing board 6 of cementitious or composite material, Coyle recites “Ideally the backing means is formed at least partially from cementitious and/or composite material” in para. 00134. And para. 0123 recites “Preferably the carrier means is attached to a backing means” suggesting that it is not necessary for functionality.
Applicant’s arguments not addressed 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 BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
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.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights