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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claim 1-45 in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2025 was considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-27, 29, 3 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 1 recites “wherein the inner surface of the first insulation layer is planarly and contactably attached to the outer surface of the first structurally stable panel” then further states ‘the WRB layer is secured to the outer surface of the first structurally stable panel through an adhesive layer”. It is unclear how two different elements can be attached to the same outer surface of the stable panel, rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 25, the phrase " By way of example, " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 25 is rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
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, 5-22, 39-42, and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCary US201102966781 in view of Vairo US20200353716.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 10, and 11. McCary discloses a first insulated wall-sheathing (IWS) panel comprising the following layers:
an optional insulation facer layer having an outer surface and an inner surface;
a first insulation layer (46) having an outer surface and an inner surface; wherein the inner surface of the first open-celled insulation layer is planarly and contactably attached to the outer surface of the first insulation layer;
a first structurally stable panel (43) having an outer surface and an inner surface, and at least one edge extending between its outer surface and the inner surface; wherein the inner surface of the first insulation layer is planarly and contactably attached to the outer surface of the first structurally stable panel (Fig.4); and
a first weather-resistive barrier (WRB) layer (44) having an outer surface and an inner surface, wherein the inner surface of the WRB layer is secured to the outer surface of the first structurally stable panel through an adhesive layer, or through a fastener-gasketing layer, or through an adhesive layer and a fastener-gasketing layer; wherein,
optionally, the WRB layer exceeds a dimension of the first structurally stable panel from at least one of its edges to create an extension flap; and wherein the extension flap of the WRB layer further comprises a removably attached release-liner attached to the WRB layer's inner surface.
It should be noted that claim 1 recites an optional insulation face layer and again an optional extension flap – Examiner would treat these elements as not required and/or not critical to the invention since they are optional. Furthermore all claims that depend from said optional elements would be considered met.
McCary only discloses an insulating foam 46 but is silent on a first open-celled insulation layer having an outer surface and an inner surface; wherein, when the insulation facer layer is present, the inner surface of the insulation facer is planarly and contactably attached to the outer surface of the first open-celled insulation layer.
Vairo before the filing date of the instant invention discloses a insulation board (106) that may be a multilayer thermal insulation board that includes a closed cell polyurethane/polyisocyanurate foam layer 202 having an open cell volume of less than 20% by volume according to ASTM D 6226 and an open cell polyurethane/polyisocyanurate foam layer 204 having an open cell volume of greater than 80% by volume according to ASTM D 6226 (shown in FIGS. 2 and 3). It would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the insulation layer of McCary with that of Vairo with the motivation of improved thermal insulation performance with the same thickness of insulation as suggested by Vairo, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claim 5. McCary as modified discloses the open-celled insulation layer is a spray foam or EPS (P.0070).
Claim 6. McCary as modified discloses a blowing agent, wherein the blowing is in an aqueous medium (P.0041).
Claim 7. McCary as modified discloses the WRB layer (44) is substantially bulk water resistant and substantially water vapor permeable (P.0014).
Claim 12. McCary as modified discloses the first insulation layer is foam insulation comprising polyisocyanurate foam, polystyrene foam, polyurethane foam, EPS, GPS, XPS, or a combination thereof (P.0006 of Vairo).
Claim 13. McCary as modified discloses the first insulation layer has a density in the range of about 1 to about 20 pounds per cubic feet (pcf) according to ASTM D1622 (P.0026:1-4 of Vairo).
Claim 14 and 15. McCary as modified fails to disclose the first insulation layer has a water absorption of less than about 10% according to ASTM C209 or ASTM C2842, wherein the first insulation layer has a water vapor permeance from about 0.1 to about 20 perms as determined according to ASTM E96, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to further modify the insulation layer of McCary as modified to include water absorption of less than about 10% and water vapor permeance from about 0.1 to about 20 perms with the motivation have a superior water proof system, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claim 16. McCary as modified discloses the system exhibits a thermal resistance value (R-value) from about 1 to about 15 according to ASTM C1289-02 (as shown in Table 2).
Claim 17. McCary as modified discloses the first open-celled insulation layer further comprises a membrane layer (206 of Vairo).
Claim 18. McCary as modified discloses the insulation membrane layer comprises radiant barrier material, polymeric film, polymeric fabric, paper, cellulosic material, reinforcing scrim, or a combination thereof (P.0050:1-5).
Claim 19. McCary as modified discloses the first insulation layer is secured to the panel using an adhesive (104) selected from a phenol-formaldehyde resin, hot-melt adhesive, polyvinyl acetate (PVA) resin, or a combination thereof (P.0009:3-10)
Claim 20-21. McCary as modified discloses the WRB barrier layer comprises a resin-impregnated paper substantially covering the outward facing surface of the panel but fails to disclose the resin-impregnated paper having a paper basis weight of 21.772 kg (48 lbs.) to about 102.058 kg (225 lbs.) per ream and a resin content of less than 80% by dry weight, wherein each panel and barrier layer has a water vapor transmission rate from about 0.7 to about 7 grams/m2/24 hrs as determined according to ASTM E96 procedure A (at 730 F.-50% RH) and a liquid water transmission rate from about 1 to about 28 grams/100 in2/24 hrs via Cobb ring according to ASTM D5795. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to provide a WRB barrier layer as claimed with the motivation have a superior waterproof system, 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.
Claim 22. McCary as further modified discloses an outer surface of the barrier layer is textured. Examiner takes official notice that every surface is textured because no manufactured or natural surface is a perfectly flat, ideal geometric plane.
Claim 39. McCary as modified fails to disclose said panel has a density in the range of 42 to 54 lbs/ft3 however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to provide a panel with the claimed density with the motivation have a superior exterior wall system, 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.
Claim 40. McCary as modified fails to disclose the open-celled foam layer comprises a sprayable foam that is made from polyurethane sprayable foams, polyurea sprayable foams, and combinations thereof (P.0010 of Vairo).
Claim 41. McCary as modified fails to disclose the sprayable foam is selected from the group consisting of acrylic foams, latex foams, melamine foams, isocyanurate foams, and silicone foams (P.0038 of Vairo).
Claim 42. McCary as modified fails to disclose the open-celled polyurethane with the open cell structure has a density of between 0.60 and 1.5 lb. per cubic foot, or the density of the open cell polyurethane foam is between 0.90 and 1.20 lb. per cubic foot, or the density of the foamed open cell polyurethane foam is between 1.00 and 1.15 lb. per cubic foot; and/or wherein the open cell content of the foams of the first open-celled foam insulation layer is greater than 85%, or 90%, or 95%, or 98%. – (P.0044 of Vairo discloses open cell polyurethane/polyisocyanurate foam layer has a density of less than 10 kg/m.sup.3 = 0.62427962 lb/ft3)
Claim 44. McCary as modified fails to disclose a blowing agent, wherein the blowing agent comprises water, carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), chlorinated fluorocarbons, or hydrofluoro olefins (HFOs) – (P.0041 of Vairo).
Claim 45. McCary as modified discloses panel assembly comprising at least two panels juxtaposed and/or adhered to each other, wherein at least one panel is according to the IWS panel, as recited in claim 1 (Fig.2).
Claims 2-4, 24, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCary US201102966781 and Vairo US20200353716, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Sealock US10570616.
Claim 2-4, 24, and 38. McCary as modified discloses the structurally stable panel is substrate/sheathing 43 but is silent on a wood-composite panel is a OSB board comprising lignocellulosic panel, wherein the lignocellulosic panel is an OSB panel. Sealock before the filing date of the instant invention discloses an insulated sheathing panel comprising lignocellulosic panel (Col.34:40-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the substrate of McCary with that of Sealock to provide improved external security and durability over foam sheathing as taught by Sealock. Furthermore, 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
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCary US201102966781 and Vairo US20200353716, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Balogh CA2905412.
Claim 25. McCary as modified discloses the structurally stable panel is substrate/sheathing 43 but is silent on other plant-based materials such as grass. Balogh before the filing date of the instant invention discloses an insulated sheathing panel comprising grass (P.00145). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the substrate of McCary with that of Balogh to provide improved and durable external wall. Furthermore, 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
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest the combination of characteristics specified in the independent claim, especially the requirement of a substance concerning the stable panel consisting lignocellulosic including flax fibers and flax shives, hence there is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to attached NOTICE OF REFERENCE CITED.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BABAJIDE A DEMUREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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 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.
BABAJIDE A. DEMUREN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/BABAJIDE A DEMUREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights