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
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) 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2012/0247042 to Clancy et al. (“Clancy”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,927,542 to St. Germain (“St. Germain”).
Regarding claim 1, Clancy discloses a siding end-joint sealing system, comprising: a plurality of pieces of siding 10 (see Fig. 3 for exemplary siding), each piece with a front side 20 or 22, a back side 22 or 20, a first end 24, a second end 28, a top edge 30, a bottom edge 26, a length, a height, and a thickness, and a factory-applied first gasket seal 32 integrated with the first end 24, extending for the height of the respective piece of siding and at least some or all of the thickness, and a factory-applied second gasket seal 32 integrated with the second end 28, extending for the height of the respective piece of siding and at least some or all of the thickness (par 0062 discloses seal 32 on two, three, or four edges); wherein the plurality of pieces of siding are configured to be installed in a series of rows, each row comprising several pieces of siding affixed on a structural wall, panel or framing end-to-end (Fig. 8), such that the first end of one piece of siding forms a joint with the second end of an adjacent piece of siding, and the respective first gasket seal and second gasket seal in the joint are in contact with each other (par 0065 discloses boards with seals on parallel edges, seals will engage seals of other boards 10); wherein, after installation of the pieces of siding, the respective first gasket seal and second gasket seal provide an air penetration barrier in the joint.
Clancy does not disclose that the respective first gasket seal and second gasket seal together cover the entire height and thickness of the first end of said one piece of siding and the entire height and thickness of the second end of said adjacent piece of siding.
St. Germain discloses a sealing system wherein adjoint panels each have a respective first gasket seal (St. Germain, 60) and second gasket seal (St. Germain, 60) together cover an entire height and thickness of the first end of said one piece of siding and the entire height and thickness of the second end of said adjacent piece of siding (St. Germain, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sealing system of Clancy to have the respective first gasket seal and second gasket seal together cover the entire height and thickness of the first end of said one piece of siding and the entire height and thickness of the second end of said adjacent piece of siding as taught in St. Germain with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably provide a tight seal between adjacent panels along the entire joint.
Regarding claim 2, Clancy in view of St. Germain discloses that the joint is a butt joint (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Clancy in view of St. Germain discloses that the first gasket seal (32 on end 24) extends across all of the thickness of the respective piece of siding, and the second gasket seal (32 on 28) extends across all of the thickness of the respective piece of siding.
Regarding claim 4, Clancy in view of St. Germain discloses that the first gasket seal (32 on end 24) extends across a first distance of the thickness of the respective piece of siding, and the second gasket seal (32 on end 28) extends across a second distance of the thickness of the respective piece of siding.
Regarding claim 5, Clancy in view of St. Germain discloses that the first distance and second distance are equal.
Regarding claim 7, Clancy in view of St. Germain discloses that the first and second gasket seals are rectilinear in cross-section (see Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 8, Clancy in view of St. Germain discloses that the first gasket seal (see Fig. 5B embodiment) comprises a first pair of seal elements with a space therebetween, configured to receive the second gasket seal in said space when the joint is formed.
Regarding claim 9, Clancy in view of St. Germain discloses that the first gasket seal (see Fig. 5F embodiment) comprises a first pair of seal elements (two spaced upper flanges) with a first space therebetween, and a second pair of elements (two spaced lower flanges) with a second space therebetween; and the second gasket seal comprises a first rectilinear element (one of the flanges) and a second rectilinear element (a second one of the flanges) with a third rectilinear element positioned (flange in between the first and second flange) in between;; wherein the first pair of seal elements are configured to receive the first rectilinear element in said first space, and the second pair of seal elements are configured to receive the second rectilinear element in the second space therebetween, and the third rectilinear element is configured to fill the space between the first pair of seal elements and the second pair of seal elements when the joint is formed.
Regarding claim 10, Clancy in view of St. Germain discloses that the first and second gasket seals 32 each comprise a flexible blade extending at an angle away from their respective first and second ends (see Fig. 5F).
Regarding claim 11, Clancy in view of St. Germain discloses that the flexible blades (Fig. 5F) extend at an angle towards the front side 22 of the respective pieces of siding.
Regarding claim 12, Clancy in view of St. Germain discloses that the flexible blades (Fig. 5F) extend at an angle towards the back side 22 of the respective pieces of siding.
Regarding claim 14, Clancy in view of St. Germain discloses that the gasket seals 32 are compressible (par 0065).
Regarding claim 15, Clancy in view of St. Germain discloses that the gasket seals 32 are made of the same material (par 0073).
Regarding claim 16, Clancy in view of St. Germain discloses that after installation of the pieces of siding, the respective first gasket seal and second gasket seal provide a water or moisture penetration barrier in the joint.
Regarding claim 17, Clancy discloses a siding product 10 with factory-installed air seals 32, comprising a piece of siding with a front side 20, a back side 2, a first end 24, a second end 28, a top edge, a bottom edge, a length, a height, and a thickness a factory-applied first gasket seal 32 integrated with the first end 24, extending for the height of the respective piece of siding and at least some or all of the thickness; wherein the first end 24 is configured to form a joint end-to-end with an adjacent piece of siding, with the first gasket seal 32 forming an air penetration barrier in the joint.
Clancy does not disclose that the factory-applied first gasket seal extends for the entire height of the respective piece of siding.
St. Germain discloses a sealing system wherein adjoint panels each have a respective first gasket seal (St. Germain, 60) that extends for the entire height of the respective piece of siding (St. Germain, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sealing system of Clancy to have the factory-applied first gasket seal extend for the entire height of the respective piece of siding as taught in St. Germain with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably provide a tight seal between adjacent panels along the entire joint.
Regarding claim 18, Clancy in view of St. Germain discloses a factory-applied second gasket seal 32 integrated with the second end 28, extending for the height of the respective piece of siding and at least some or all of the thickness; wherein the second gasket seal 32 on said adjacent piece of siding is in contact with the first gasket seal when the joint is formed, the first gasket seal and adjacent second gasket seal together forming an air penetration barrier in the joint (par 0065 discloses boards with seals on parallel edges, seals will engage seals of other boards 10).
Clancy does not disclose that the factory-applied second gasket seal extends for the entire height of the respective piece of siding and wherein the first gasket seal and adjacent second gasket seal together cover the entire height and thickness of the first end and second end, thereby forming an air penetration barrier in the joint.
St. Germain discloses a sealing system wherein a factory-applied second gasket seal (St. Germain, 60) extends for the entire height of the respective piece of siding and wherein the first gasket seal and adjacent second gasket seal together cover the entire height and thickness of the first end and second end, thereby forming an air penetration barrier in the joint (St. Germain, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sealing system of Clancy to have the factory-applied second gasket seal extend for the entire height of the respective piece of siding and wherein the first gasket seal and adjacent second gasket seal together cover the entire height and thickness of the first end and second end, thereby forming an air penetration barrier in the joint as taught in St. Germain with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably provide a tight seal between adjacent panels along the entire joint.
Regarding claim 19, Clancy in view of St. Germain discloses that the first gasket seal 32 and adjacent second gasket seal 32 together form a water or moisture penetration barrier in the joint.
Regarding claim 20, Clancy in view of St. Germain discloses that the first gasket seal extends across all of the thickness of the respective piece of siding, and the second gasket seal extends across all of the thickness of the respective piece of siding.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clancy in view of St. Germain as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of DE4101322 to Flicker (“Flicker”).
Regarding claim 6, Clancy in view of St. Germain does not disclose that the first distance and second distance together are equal to the thickness of the respective pieces of siding.
Flicker discloses a joint between two boards (Flicker 1, 2) wherein a first abutting connector (Flicker 4) extends across a first distance of the thickness of the respective piece of siding, and a second abutting connector (Flicker 5) extends across a second distance of the thickness of the respective piece of siding and wherein the first distance and second distance together are equal to the thickness of the respective pieces of the boards.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structure of Clancy to have the first distance and second distance together are equal to the thickness of the respective pieces of siding as taught in Flicker with a reasonable expectation of success because it would create a butt joint where the two sidings are flush.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clancy in view of St. Germain.
Regarding claim 13, Clancy in view of St. Germain does not disclose that the first and second gasket seals 32 each has a thickness of 3/32″. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the structure of Clancy to have the first and second gasket seals each have a thickness of 3/32″ since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the new combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As discussed above, St. Germain teaches the newly added limitation that was not present in the primary reference of Clancy.
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 CHRISTINE T CAJILIG whose telephone number is (571)272-8143. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/CHRISTINE T CAJILIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights