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 .
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) 1-7, 12-15, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viness et al. (US Patent No 8,919,062) (“Viness”) in view of Stahl JR. et al. (US PGPub No 2020/0263419) (“Stahl”).
Referring to claim 1: Viness teaches a wedge (item 160) comprising a bottom side, a top side aligned oblique to the bottom side, a rear side extending between the bottom side and the top side, wherein the top side comprises a top front edge and a top rear edge; and, a channel (item 150) disposed on the top side of the wedge, wherein the channel comprises a channel outlet, and wherein the channel outlet is aligned proximal to the top front edge and distal to the top rear edge. Viness does not teach a fireblocking base form aligned below the wedge, wherein the fireblocking base form comprises a fire-resistant material. However, Stahl teaches fireblocking base (item 60) form aligned below the wedge, wherein the fireblocking base form comprises a fire-resistant material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Viness and add the fireblocking device taught by Stahl in order to reduce the chance of fire spreading through a structure by sealing penetrations.
Referring to claim 2: Viness and Stahl teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Viness teaches a waterproof membrane (item 128) aligned on the top side of the wedge.
Referring to claim 3: Viness and Stahl teach all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Viness teaches the channel comprises the waterproof membrane (figure 2).
Referring to claim 4: Viness and Stahl teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Viness teaches a weep tube aligned on the top side of the wedge, and wherein the weep tube is in fluid communication with the channel (claim 2).
Referring to claim 5: Viness and Stahl teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Stahl teaches wherein the fireblocking base form comprises a base form front side, a base form rear side spaced apart from and opposing the base form front side, a base form bottom side extending between the base form front side and the base form rear side, a base form top side extending between the base form front side and the base form rear side, a base form first side extending between the base form front side and the base form rear side and the base form bottom side and the base form top side, and a base form second side extending between the base form front side and the base form rear side and the base form bottom side and the base form top side (figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have all the specific sides to form a rectilinear fireblock.
Referring to claim 6: Viness and Stahl teach all the limitations of claim 5 as noted above. Additionally, it would have been obvious that once the wedge of Viness is placed on the fireblock of Stahl the wedge would be disposed on the base form top side in order to provide water expulsion and fire prevention through a wall cavity.
Referring to claim 7: Viness and Stahl teach all the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Viness teaches wherein the wedge comprises a front side extending between the bottom side and the top side (figure 3), and Stahl teaches wherein the front side of the wedge is aligned coplanar with the base form front side (when the wedge replaces item 52).
Referring to claim 12: Viness and Stahl teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Viness teaches wherein the wedge, the channel and the fireblocking base form are disposed in an exterior wall panel, wherein the wall panel comprises a support frame and a front face, wherein the wedge and the fireblocking base form are mounted to the support frame and disposed intermediate between the support frame and the front face, wherein wall panel comprises a weep hole defined in the front face, and wherein the channel is in fluid communication with the weep hole (figure 2).
Referring to claim 13: Viness and Stahl teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the wedge of Viness out of the fire-resistant material of Stahl (claim 4) in order to further fireproof the device and prevent the spread of fire through the structure.
Referring to claim 14: Viness teaches a wedge (item 160) comprising a front side, a rear side opposing the front side, a bottom side extending between the front side and the rear side, and a top side aligned oblique to the front side, wherein the top side and the rear side cooperate to form a top rear edge, and wherein the top side and the front side cooperate to form a top front edge; a plurality of channels (item 150) aligned on the top side of the wedge, and wherein each channel of the plurality of channels comprises a channel outlet aligned distal to the top rear edge and proximal to the top front edge. Viness does not teach a fireblocking base form comprising a base form front side, a base form rear side spaced apart from and opposing the base form front side, a base form bottom side extending between the base form front side and the base form rear side, a base form top side extending between the base form front side and the base form rear side, a base form first side extending between the base form front side and the base form rear side and the base form bottom side and the base form top side, and a base form second side extending between the base form front side and the base form rear side and the base form bottom side and the base form top side, wherein the fireblocking base form comprises a fire-resistant material, and wherein the wedge is disposed on the base form top side. However, Stahl teaches a fireblocking base (item 60) form comprising a base form front side, a base form rear side spaced apart from and opposing the base form front side, a base form bottom side extending between the base form front side and the base form rear side, a base form top side extending between the base form front side and the base form rear side, a base form first side extending between the base form front side and the base form rear side and the base form bottom side and the base form top side, and a base form second side extending between the base form front side and the base form rear side and the base form bottom side and the base form top side, wherein the fireblocking base form comprises a fire-resistant material, and wherein the wedge is disposed on the base form top side (figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Viness and add the fireblocking device taught by Stahl in order to reduce the chance of fire spreading through a structure by sealing penetrations.
Referring to claim 15: Viness and Stahl teach all the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Additionally, Viness teaches a waterproof membrane (item 128) aligned on the top side of the wedge.
Referring to claim 17: Viness and Stahl teach all the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Additionally, Viness teaches a plurality of weep tubes aligned on the top side of the wedge, and wherein each weep tube of the plurality of weep tubes is in fluid communication with a channel of the plurality of channels (claim 2).
Referring to claim 21: Viness and Stahl teach all the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the wedge of Viness out of the fire-resistant material of Stahl (claim 4) in order to further fireproof the device and prevent the spread of fire through the structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is allowed.
Claims 8-11, 16, 18-20 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights