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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is moot in light of the terminal disclaimer filed 6/25/26.
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) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0055983 to Tomes in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,222,697 to Scheermesser.
Regarding claim 21, Tomes discloses a kit for forming a wall system, comprising a panel (fig. 3: 51) having a first side (fig. 3: left side) and a second side (fig. 3: right side), wherein with the first side having a plurality of channels defined by a plurality of laterally extending protrusions (53, 57) and a plurality of stone or brick units (fig. 2: 11), wherein the plurality of stone or brick units are sized to be disposed outside of the channels on the first side of the panel. However, Tome does not disclose each of the second sides do not comprise a plurality of laterally extending channels which are vertically staggered. Scheermesser discloses a foam panel with the panel having laterally extending channels on both left and right sides (fig. 9: 33: see channels and protrusions on both sides). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomes by using channels on the second side as disclosed by Scheermesser in order to increase rigidity. Regarding the limitation of configured to receive fasteners, the Applicant should note that fasteners are not positively claimed and the structure of Tomes in view of Scheermesser may receive fasteners in such a way as claimed.
Regarding claim 22, a construction adhesive (34c, 34b) couples the stone or brick to the first side of the panel.
Regarding claim 23, the panel further comprises mating features (sides) which may allow mating with a corresponding mating feature of an adjacent panel.
Regarding claims 24-26, 34-36 Tomes discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific channel dimensions. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomes to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as a mere design choice where more or less ventilation is required, the channels would be larger or smaller, as needed to increase or decrease air or liquid flow.
Regarding claim 27, Tomes in view of Scheermesser disclose the laterally extending channels on the first side of the panel align with the laterally extending protrusions on the second side of the panel, as taught by Tomes in view of Bynoe (Bynoe fig. 4: see aligned protrusions on both sides).
Regarding claims 28 and 40, the panel of Tomes is extruded polystyrene foam [0029], not expanded. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomes by using expanded foam as the Examiner takes official notice that expanded foam is well known in the art of insulating building components since the foaming action fills more cervices and more completely insulates.
Regarding claim 29, one or more mechanical fasteners for coupling the panel to a wall substrate are disclosed (Tomes fig. 1: 37)
Regarding claim 30, mortar for disposing between the plurality of stone or brick units (Tomes 34) is disclosed.
Regarding claim 31, Tomes in view of Bynoe teach the plurality of laterally extending channels on the second side of the panel are configured may allow fluid flow through the channels.
Regarding claim 32, the panel may work to provide insulation to the wall system.
Regarding claim 33, claim 33 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 21, as Tomes in view of Scheermesser discloses a kit for forming a wall system, comprising an expanded polystyrene foam panel (fig. 3: 51,[0029]) having a first side and a second side (fig. 3: left and right sides of 51), wherein the first side comprises a plurality of laterally extending channels (53) defined by a plurality of laterally extending protrusions (55, 56) and a plurality of stone or brick units (fig. 1: 11), wherein the plurality of stone or brick units are sized to be disposed outside of the channels on the first side of the panel (as seen in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejections of claims 21. However, instructions for coupling the panel to a wall and for coupling the panel to stone or brick are not disclosed. The Examiner takes official notice that the use of instructions are well known as for example, a bag of cement will have instructions on mixing and, generally of use, printed on a side. Instructions for coupling may be as simple as a proper water to cement ratio. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomes by adding instructions as stated above, instructions are typically found on bags of cement, concrete and other materials used as adhesives in order to provide a proper ratio for a successful construction project.
Regarding claim 38, claim 38 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 37. Additionally, fluid may flow in the channels of the second side, taught by Tomes in view of Bynoe, which is against a substrate.
Regarding claim 39, this is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 37. Additionally, instructions which allow partial entrance into the channel would be standard instructions as component 60 (fig. 3) carrying cement (as in fig 2), is flexible to extend into a channel, in part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the recent claim amendments regarding the orientation of the protrusions on the sides of the panel. This new limitation has been addressed in the new office action above. The Applicant should note that the limitations drawn to a fastener use, “configured”, and how the fastener is situated is not positively claimed.
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 extension fee 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 Basil Katcheves whose telephone number is (571)272-6846. 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 on (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.
/BASIL S KATCHEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights