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 34 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 34 recites the limitation "the width". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner believes that Applicant intended to recite “a width”.
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) 20-23 and 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradley (WO2022/077061).
Regarding claims 20 and 38, Bradley discloses a structural assembly (100, Figs. 1-9) and method of erecting which comprises at least one panel (102, Fig. 5), the, or each, panel being hollow (108) and of a fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) (Page 7, lines 20-21), and including a front wall (109); a rear wall (111); and upper(112A) and lower walls (112B), wherein the rear wall is shaped to define at least one outwardly curved portion (Corners); and at least two posts (101) of FRP (Page 2, lines 5-7), each post including two opposed flanges (105A, 105B); and a web (106) interposed between the flanges such that the flanges and the web define opposed channels, such that opposed sides of the, or each, panel (102)can be received in facing channels of consecutive posts (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 21, Bradley discloses wherein the, or each, panel (101), and the posts (102), are pultruded products (Abstract).
Regarding claim 22, Bradley discloses the front wall (109) and the upper (112a) and lower (112B) walls of the, or each, panel are substantially planar (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 23, Bradley discloses the rear wall (111) of the, or each, panel is shaped to define two or more outwardly curved portions (Corners, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 36, Bradley discloses a panel (101) for a structural assembly (100, Figs. 1-9), the panel comprising a front wall (109); a rear wall (111); and upper (112A) and lower walls (112B), wherein the panel is hollow (108) and of FRP (Page 7, lines 20-21), and the rear wall (111) is shaped to define at least one outwardly curved portion (Curved corners, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 37, Bradley discloses a post (102) for a structural assembly (100, Figs. 1-9), the post comprising two opposed flanges (105A, 105B); and a web (106) interposed between the flanges such that the flanges and the web define opposed channels, such that opposed sides of a panel can be received in facing channels of consecutive posts, wherein the post (101) is of FRP (Page 2, lines 5-7).
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) 24-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley (WO2022/077061).
Regarding claim 24, Bradley discloses the rear wall (111) of the, or each, panel (102), but does not disclose the rear wall defines at least one corrugation. However, 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 rear wall of any shape or design including one of corrugation as a matter of design choice, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from changing the shape, size or design of the rear wall.
Regarding claim 25, Bradley discloses the upper (112A) and lower (112B) walls of the, or each, panel (102), but does not disclose that they are oriented substantially orthogonally with respect to the front wall. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the upper and lower walls of one or each panel to be orthogonal with respect to the front wall as a matter of design choice, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having the top and bottom walls orthogonal to the front wall.
Regarding claim 26, Bradley discloses wherein internal corners (Corners) defined by the front and upper and lower walls of the, or each, panel (102) have a minimum radius, but does not disclose the minimum radius being between 2 mm and 5mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have corners with a minimum raidus between 2mm and 5mm to achieve the desired shape and design, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having corners comprising a minimum radius.
Regarding claim 27, Bradley discloses the upper (112A) and lower (112B) walls of the, or each, panel having a height but does not disclose the height being between 0.6 and 0.8 times an overall thickness of the, or each, panel. However, 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 height of the upper and lower walls that was between 0.6 and 0.8 times an overall thickness of the panels as a matter of design choice, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having a shape or design with optimum dimensions.
Regarding claim 28, Bradley discloses the FRP as set forth above, but does not disclose the FRP includes at least one of glass fiber yarn and glass fiber mat.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to have an FRP that included either a glass fiber yarn or glass fiber mat that was known fiberglass reinforcement material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from using any fiberglass material as reinforcement.
Regarding claim 29, Bradley discloses wherein the FRP as set forth above, but does not disclose that the FRP includes both glass fiber yarn and glass fiber mat. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to have an FRP that included both a glass fiber yarn or glass fiber mat that were known fiberglass reinforcement material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from using any fiberglass material as reinforcement in any combination.
Regarding claim 30, Bradley discloses the FRP as set forth above, but does not disclose the FRP being between 50 per cent and 60 per cent, by mass, glass fiber yarn, and between 10 per cent and 15 per cent, by mass, glass fiber mat. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the FRP be between 50 per cent and 60 per cent, by mass, glass fiber yarn, and between 10 per cent and 15 per cent, by mass, glass fiber mat for optimum reinforcement strength, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from using any fiberglass material as reinforcement in any combination.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Bradley discloses the web (106) of each post (101, Fig. 4), but does not disclose the webs being hollow and includes two, spaced web walls or at least one bracing wall that interconnects the web walls. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have webs that were hollow and included spaced apart web walls or at least one bracing wall that interconnects the web walls to increase the load capacity as a matter of design choice, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having a post that that was designed to have multiple webs and take on any shape as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 33, Bradley discloses each post (101) having an overall width but does not disclose the overall width being between 0.4 and 0.6 times an overall depth of the, or each, post. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an overall width of each post being between 0.4 and 0.6 times an overall depth of the, or each, post as matter of design choice and to provide be of a size to provide sufficient support. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having a post with an overall width that provided the support strength and support needed.
Regarding claim 34, Bradley discloses the flanges as set forth above having a width, but does not disclose the width of one of the flanges being between 0.7 and 0.9 times the width of the other flange. However, 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 width of one of the flanges being between 0.7 and 0.9 times the width of the other flange to provide the necessary strength, support and size as a matter of design choice, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having a flange with a width that was smaller or greater than another flange.
Regarding claim 35, Bradley discloses the corners defined by the web (106) and the flanges (105A, 105B) of each post (101) having a radius (Fig. 4), but does not disclose the radius being between 10 mm and 14 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the radius of the corners being between 10mm and 14mm to correspond to the size of the flanges as matter of design choice, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having corners of a post that have corners with a radius of dimensions that correspond to the size of the flange.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J BUCKLE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST.
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 5712726754. 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.
/JAMES J BUCKLE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
