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.
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]); 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 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 polyurethane insulation is monolithic, Fink does discuss in [0013] the “application of continuous exterior insulation can significantly increase the thermal performance…”, and further 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 increase the thermal performance of the building.
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) thus it would have been obvious that it has cured over the other layers 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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