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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 8/5/26 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-20 stand pending.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al. US 2024/0082863 A1 (hereinafter ‘Fink’).
In regard to claims 1, 2, 11, 12 and 19, Fink teaches a method of retrofitting a building exterior with an insulation and cladding construction (see [0013]), the method comprising:
placing rigid panel insulation members (see EPS boards) to at least first sections of the building exterior (the sheathing, which are generally flat areas);
applying spray-on polyurethane insulation foam (see [0021] “spray foam”) to at least second sections (gaps between the foam boards, thus seam areas, or where the boards are absent) of the building exterior (the sheathing at the gaps as disclosed at the end of [0021]), wherein the sprayed-on polyurethane insulation foam is bonded to the attached rigid panel insulation members (note that Flink discloses in [0020] that “spray foam is also extremely adhesive and forms a durable bond with most common materials” thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the sprayed on foam will bond to the boards due to its adhesive properties) ; and
applying spray-on cladding (base and/or finish coating as part of the EIFS system -see [0023]) over said place rigid insulation members and over said applied spray-on polyurethane insulation foam at said at least first and second sections of the building exterior (see fig. 1A), wherein said applied spray-on cladding unites and joins said placed rigid panel insulation members and said applied spray-on polyurethane insulation foam and stablishes a continuous and monolithic cladding exterior construction thereover (see [0013]).
Note that although Fink does not explicitly disclose the spray-on cladding is monolithic, Fink does discuss in [0013] the “application of continuous exterior insulation can significantly increase the thermal performance…”, in [0016] that “finish layer that can significantly improve the building thermal performance and airtightness” and further in in [0021] disclosing that its EIFS system creates a “sealed surface”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to create a continuous monolithic cladding exterior construction so as to maintain the thermal performance of the building and contribute to preserving the sealed surface.
Note further, that the sprayed-on cladding is placed over the rigid members and over the sprayed-on polyurethane foam (see fig. 1A -note the base and finish coats) in its uncured form, thus it would have been obvious that it has cured over the other layers because that is where it was placed uncured, so as to fulfill the functionality of the EIFS system.
With respect to the step of removing existing exterior structures (for claims 2, 12 and 19), Fink discloses removing existing exterior structures (i.e. aluminum and vinyl siding -see [0033]). It would have been obvious to remove these exterior structures before the step of attaching rigid panel insulation members since the rigid panel members are disclosed as being attached to the sheathing (see fig. 1A).
In regard to claim 3, Fink teaches the claimed method further comprising attaching said placed rigid panel insulation members to said at least first section of the building exterior and wherein said first sections comprises generally flat areas of the building exterior (note that the sheathing provides for generally flat areas to which the rigid members are attached).
In regard to claims 4 and 14, Fink teaches the claimed method further comprising spraying-on polyurethane insulation foam to gap areas stablished between said rigid panel members and fenestrations of the building exterior (see end of [0021]).
In regard to claims 5, 6, and 15 Fink teaches the claimed method wherein the step of applying said spray-on polyurethane comprises applying it over said placed rigid panel members at said at least first sections of the building exterior and all sections of the building exterior (see [0021-0022] discloses applying foam over the rigid foam layer and later discloses “once the building… is covered with foam”).
In regard to claims 7 and 16, Fink teaches the claimed method wherein the sprayed-on cladding is placed over the rigid members and over the sprayed-on polyurethane foam (see fig. 1A -note the base and finish coats) thus it would have been obvious that it has cured in such arrangement (over the other layers) so as to fulfill the functionality of the EIFS system.
In regard to claims 8 and 17, Fink teaches the claimed method wherein said sprayed-on cladding is an applied spray-on polymeric material (See acrylic, silicone in [0020]). It is noted that these materials are disclosed as protective coats that are applied to the foam, and are part of the base and/or finish coats.
In regard to claims 10 and 20, Fink teaches the claimed method wherein said continuous monolithic cladding exterior construction is an exterior-most construction (see fig. 1A) and lacks fastener part attachment to a structure of the building. Note that Fink discloses that uncured foam is extremely adhesive and forms a durable bond with most common materials (see [0020]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the cladding exterior lacks fastener parts as the foam is already doing to bonding the structure.
In regard to claim 13, Fink teaches the claimed method wherein said applied spray-on cladding joins said placed rigid panel insulation members and said applied spray-on polyurethane insulation foam and stablishes a continuous and monolithic cladding exterior construction thereover (see [0013]).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink in view of Squires US 2011/0130062 A1 (hereinafter ‘Squires’).
In regard to claims 9 and 18, Fink does not explicitly teach the spray-on polyurethane is an applied spray-on lignin based polyurethane insulation foam.
Squires teaches an insulating panel comprising a lignin based polyurethane (see [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide a lignin based polyurethane foam in the system of Fink so as to provide an eco-friendly insulation system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument for claims 1 and 11 that Fink does not disclose that the spray-on cladding unites and joins the rigid panels with the spray-on insulation or that is doesn’t teach the sprayed on cladding “establishes a continuous and monolithic cladding exterior construction”, the examiner maintains the above rejection and notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a spray-on finishing cladding that covers an underlying substrate to achieve “airtightness” and form a singular “layer” as disclosed by Fink in [0016] would obviously bridge, join and unite the rigid boards and filled gaps underneath. Note that sprayed-on materials, such as finishing materials are sprayed in liquid or slurry form (as disclosed by Fink in [0029]) and naturally cure as a single uninterrupted mass that physically binds the underlying materials together. Thus, by definition, spraying a liquid or slurry cladding across a surface (of rigid boards and foam in the gaps) results in a fluid application that fills microscopic voids and cures as a singular unbroken material. This unbroken material across the surface of the boards and foam would structurally “unite” them into a single, continuous exterior face. Fink even discloses the use of embedded fiberglass mesh to add strength and prevent cracking (see [0022]). The purpose of this mesh is to bridge the seams between elements like the boards and foam filling the gaps to distribute stress and prevent cracking, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this sprayed cladding joins and unites the rigid boards and sprayed foam into a single monolithic unit.
Regarding claims 5-6, the examiner maintains that although the sprayed-on foam of Fink can be configured to be applied on specific materials and/or areas, the claim language merely requires that foam is applied to the first and second sections, and thus, per broadest reasonable interpretation, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, that when spraying on foam with a nozzle device to gaps between rigid boards, inevitably some of the sprayed on foam will end up applied over the rigid boards, thus meeting the claim.
With respect to claim 7, it is noted that the cladding is sprayed in liquid or slurry form over the foam boards and foam filled gaps with a spray apparatus (arrangement shown in fig. 1, and detailed in [0022]). Therefore, if a slurry material is applied over a surface, it is expected -under common sense- for it to cure where it was applied.
With respect to claims 9 and 18, it is noted that Squires is being used to teach that ligning based polyurethane insulation foam is well known in the art for use in construction and for insulation purposes. Thus, someone spraying polyurethane foam for insulation purposes would look to Squires and realize that spraying ligning base foam for insulation purposes is a more environmentally friendly option.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 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 E 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
