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 Claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 08 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “574” has been used in Figure 5 to designate both locations and outside. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Figure 4A
404
461
465
Figure 5
533
535
536
542
552
555
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character “453” has been used to designate both “upper bar” and “metal trim”.
Reference character “463” has been used to designate both “fastener” and “third sealant”.
Reference character “534” has been used to designate both “joist pocket assembly” and “joist”.
Reference character “574” has been used to designate both “locations” and “outside”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
During Examination, the Examiner focused on Figures 4A and 5. There may be further issues in the other Figures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-17 are 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 the limitation "the wall" on Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the transfer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “an overlying joist”
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent # 10,724,231 to Treville.
Regarding claim 1, Treville teaches in Figure 3 [annotated below], a joist pocket assembly (A), comprising: a base (B) of a cut-out (C) in a wall (114), wherein the base (B) is configured to receive a structural member (D) of a joist (E); a joist bearing plate (116) extending from a perimeter of the cut-out (C) in the wall (114); and an insulated metal panel (120) coupled to the joist pocket assembly (A), wherein a vapor barrier (F) (Column 8, Line 24) is disposed between the cut-out (C) in the wall (114), the insulated metal panel (120), and the wall (114).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Treville teaches the wall is part of a refrigerated facility (Column 4, Line 49).
Regarding claim 3, Treville teaches the vapor barrier is configured to prevent the transfer of water vapor across external surfaces of the wall [an inherent function of a vapor barrier].
Regarding claim 11, Treville teaches in Figure 3 [annotated above], the vapor barrier (F) is applied onto an inside portion [facing into the structure] of the cut-out (C) in the wall (114).
Regarding claim 12, Treville teaches in Figure 3 [annotated above], the vapor barrier (F) is applied onto an outside portion [a side of the wall facing towards the exterior] of the cut-out (C) in the wall (114).
Regarding claim 14, Treville teaches in Figure 3 [annotated above], the joist bearing plate (116) is built into the wall (114).
Regarding claim 15, Treville teaches in Figure 3 [annotated above], the joist bearing plate (116) is configured to provide structural support between the overlying joist (E) and an underlying portion of the wall (114).
Regarding claim 16, Treville teaches in Figure 3, a vapor barrier [a roof membrane on the roof insulating metal panel (Column 6, Lines 44-45)] applied over the joist bearing plate (116).
Regarding claim 17, Treville teaches in Figure 3 [annotated above], the vapor barrier (F) completely covers the joist bearing plate (116) [when viewed from the side].
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 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 10,724,231 to Treville.
Regarding claim 4, Treville teaches a joist pocket assembly with a vapor barrier but does not teach the vapor barrier comprises a roofing membrane material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a roofing membrane material for the vapor barrier 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.
Regarding claim 5, Treville teaches a joist pocket assembly with a vapor barrier but does not teach the vapor barrier comprises a bonding material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a bonding material to install the vapor barrier onto the insulating metal panel.
Regarding claim 6, Treville teaches a joist pocket assembly with a vapor barrier but does not teach the vapor barrier comprises a tape. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use tape to seal any joints in the vapor barrier thus maintaining the vapor impermeability.
Regarding claims 7-9, Treville teaches a joist pocket assembly with a vapor barrier but does not teach the vapor barrier comprises a sealant or butyl tape. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use sealant such as butyl tape to seal any joints in the vapor barrier thus maintaining the vapor impermeability. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a butyl sealant 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.
Regarding claim 10, Treville teaches a joist pocket assembly with a vapor barrier but does not teach the vapor barrier comprises an adhesive. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an adhesive to install the vapor barrier onto the insulating metal panel.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 10,724,231 to Treville in view of US Patent # 12,116,773 to Keller et al.
Regarding claim 13, Treville teaches a joist pocket assembly with a vapor barrier but does not teach the vapor barrier is painted onto the cut-out in the wall. However, Keller teaches a vapor barrier that is painted on (Column 8, Lines 7-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Treville and Keller and have a reasonable expectation of success because Keller teaches there are many obvious variants to provide a vapor barrier (Column 8, Lines 7-15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm 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 Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights