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 with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 10 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Application is for a single invention. This is not found persuasive because examining claims 1-8 and 9-14 would impose a serious search and examination burden. The method requires the formwork table, not required by the panel itself.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims lack 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 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 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 7,681,368 to Rubio in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2009/0113829 to Meier.
Regarding claim 9, Rubio teaches in Figure 2, a wall panel (Column 1, Line 6) with an energy-efficient (Column 1, Lines 34-36) insulation (Column 1, Lines 5-7), the wall panel comprising: a first sheet (24) [concrete facing (Column 3, Lines 6-7)] and a second sheet (26) [concrete facing (Column 3, Lines 6-7)]; an insulation layer (20) [foam insulation core (Column 3, Lines 4-5)] sandwiched between the first (24) and second (26) sheets; and a reinforcement layer (28) [wire mesh (Column 3, Line 8)] configured between the first sheet (24) and the insulation layer (20); wherein the first sheet (24) and the second sheet (24) comprise a concrete mixture (Column 3, Lines 6-7). Rubio is silent about the strength of the concrete mixture. 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 Rubio 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 Rubio nor Meier disclose the claimed panel length, height or thickness. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a certain length, height and 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 10, Rubio in view of Meier teach a wall panel with an insulation layer. Furthermore, Rubio teaches in Figure 7, the wall panel comprises a lock for securing connection between a first wall panel and a second wall panel [panel assembled with other panels to form a structure, assembled at conventional joints to adjacent panels to form an extended wall section (Columns 2-3, Lines 65-3)].
Regarding claim 11, Rubio in view of Meier teach a wall panel with an insulation layer. Furthermore, Rubio teaches the insulation layer comprises polystyrene insulation (Column 3, Lines 14-16) but does not teach the polystyrene is extruded. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the insulation layer from XPS 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. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Regarding claim 12, Rubio in view of Meier teach a wall panel with an insulation layer. Furthermore, Rubio teaches in Figure 2, a truss connector (22) [studs (Column 3, Line 5)] to further strengthen the wall panel.
Regarding claim 13, Rubio in view of Meier teach a wall panel with an insulation layer. Furthermore, Rubio teaches the reinforcement layer comprises a mesh (Column 4, Line 2) made from steel or steel alloy [Rubio teaches welding and galvanizing (Column 4, Lines 12-14), processes done to steel material].
Regarding claim 14, Rubio in view of Meier teach a wall panel with an insulation layer. Furthermore, Rubio teaches in Figure 2, a second reinforcement layer (28) configured between the insulation layer (20) and the second sheet (26).
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