DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges Claims 9-14 have been amended and Claims 1-8 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments with respect to the Claim Objection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Only claim 14 has been fixed by amendment, claim 12 remains objected to.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 112 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant comments that they have deleted “energy-efficient” in claim 9 to overcome the 112. However, “energy-efficient” still remains in the preamble.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the Prior Art rejection have been considered but are moot because the amendment(s) have necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection [see rejection below].
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim lacks a comma after "claim 9" like claims 10, 11 and 13 have. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-14 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. The term "energy-efficient" in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "energy-efficient" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 11 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. This claim calls for “a byrinth lock”. It seems as though this should be “labyrinth”.
Claim 12 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 12 calls for a truss connector but the claim depends from claim 9 that calls for a plurality of fiberglass connections. From the Specification, it seems as though these are the same element.
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 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2021/0301527 to Dombowsky et al in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2009/0113829 to Meier.
Regarding claim 9, Dombowsky teaches in Figures 3 and 4, a wall panel (10) (Paragraph 0019) with an energy-efficient insulation (12) (Paragraph 0020), the wall panel (10) comprising: a first reinforced (Paragraph 0078) concrete sheet (16) (Paragraph 0025) and a second reinforced (Paragraph 0078) concrete sheet (18) (Paragraph 0025); an insulation layer (12) (Paragraph 0020) comprising extruded polystyrene insulation (Paragraph 0021) sandwiched between the first (16) and second (18) sheets; and a first reinforcement layer (19A) (Paragraph 0041) configured between the first sheet (16) and a first side of the insulation layer (12), a second reinforcement layer (19B) (Paragraph 0041) configured between a second side of the insulation layer (12) and the second sheet (18); and a plurality of fiberglass connections [ties (Paragraph 0036)] extending through the insulation layer and connecting the first reinforced concrete sheet (16) to the second reinforced concrete sheet (18) (Paragraph 0036); wherein the first sheet (16) and the second sheet (18) comprises a concrete mixture having a compression strength (Paragraph 0028); and the wall panel (10) having a thickness. Dombowsky does not teach the recited compression strength of the concrete mixture in the first and second sheets. However, However, Meier teaches a concrete mixture having strength of about 8000 psi (Paragraph 0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dombowsky and Meier and have a reasonable expectation of success because Meier teaches the concrete can be mixed to meet the requirements of the specific application (Paragraph 0029). Neither Dombowsky nor Meier disclose the claimed panel thickness. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a certain panel thickness since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Dombowsky in view of Meier teach a wall panel. Furthermore, Dombowsky teaches a truss connector [tie (Paragraph 0036)] connecting the first and second reinforced concrete sheets (Paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 13, Dombowsky in view of Meier teach a wall panel. Furthermore, Dombowsky teaches in Figures 3 and 4, the first (19A) and second (19B) reinforcement layers each comprise a mesh (Paragraph 0044) made from steel alloy [metal (Paragraph 0044)].
Regarding claim 14, Dombowsky in view of Meier teach a wall panel but they do not disclose the claimed panel length or panel height. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a certain length or height since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2021/0301527 to Dombowsky in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2009/0113829 to Meier in further view of US Patent # 8,286,399 to Brown.
Regarding claim 10, Dombowsky in view of Meier teach a wall panel but they do not teach the claimed plug and socket connection. However, Brown teaches in Figures 2A-C, a wall panel (100) comprises a plug-type connection (130) [labyrinth seal (Column 4, Line 67)] including a plug (132) [projection (Column 5, Line 1)] configured to be inserted into a socket (134) [recess (Column 5, Line 1)] of an adjacent wall panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dombowsky and Meier with Brown and have a reasonable expectation of success because Brown teaches the plug-type connection provides moisture barrier protection (Column 3, Line 53).
Regarding claim 11, Dombowsky in view of Meier teach a wall panel but they do not teach the claimed lock. However, Brown teaches in Figures 3A-C, a wall panel (200) comprising a labyrinth lock (Column 5, Line 41) comprising a sealing cord (236) [solid core compressible seal (Column 5, Line 58)] for additionally securing the connection between the wall panel (200). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dombowsky and Meier with Brown and have a reasonable expectation of success because Brown teaches the lock provides moisture barrier protection (Column 3, Line 53). Brown does not teach the sealing cord is made from bitumen. However, bitumen sealing cords are old and well known and often sold as “bituminous joint sealing strips”. It would have been obvious to try a bituminous joint sealing strip for the bitumen sealing cord and have a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
