DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites, “the respective upper and lower horizontal edge faces.” It appears this language is intended to recite, “the upper and lower horizontal edge faces.” 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 1-16 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.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “the respective contact faces” on the last line of page 5, “the respective contact face” on page 6 line2 and “the respective contact face” on page 6 line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language intended to recite, “respective contact faces,” “the contact face” and “the contact face” and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 2-16 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wang (CN111946003).
Re claim 1, Wang discloses a cladding assembly (Fig. 1-2) for covering (Fig. 1) a vertical architectural structure (4), the cladding assembly (Fig. 1-2) comprising:
a panel (3) configured to be assembled with (Fig. 1) other panels (3) in an adjacent configuration (Fig. 1) to cover (Fig. 1) the vertical architectural structure (4), the panel (3) comprising:
a body (body of 3) having a rear face (left face of 3) facing (Fig. 1) the vertical architectural structure (4),
a front face (right face of 3) opposite (Fig. 1) the rear face (left face of 3),
vertical edge faces (left/right edges of 1023 and
upper and lower horizontal edge faces (top/bottom edges of 3), each of the upper and lower horizontal edge faces (top/bottom edges of 3) comprising:
a longitudinal groove (32),
a contact face (see examiner comments) between (Fig. 2) the front face (right face of 3) and the longitudinal groove (31), and
a support face (see examiner comments) between (Fig. 2) the longitudinal groove (31) and the rear face (left face of 3); and
an anchor (1, 2, 11, 21) for securing (Fig. 1-2) the panel (3) to the vertical architectural structure (4) when the cladding assembly (Fig. 1-2) is assembled (Fig. 1-2), the anchor (1, 2, 11, 21) comprising:
a fixed plate (1) configured to be fixed (via 5; see Fig. 2) to the vertical architectural structure (4);
a support plate (2, 11, 21) extending outwardly from (Fig. 1-2) the fixed plate (1) and configured to engage with (Fig. 4) the support face (see examiner comments) of the lower horizontal edge face (bottom of 3) of the panel (3) to support a part of a weight (Fig. 1-2) of the panel (3); and
a retention tab (see examiner comments) extending downwardly from (Fig. 1-2) the support plate (2, 11, 21) and configured to engage with (Fig. 1-2) part of the longitudinal groove (31) of the upper horizontal edge face (top of 3) of a bottom-adjacent panel (bottom 3), the bottom-adjacent panel (bottom 3) having the same configuration (being the same panel type) as the panel (3) and being configured to be mounted below (Fig. 1-2) the panel (3) when mounted in the adjacent configuration (Fig. 1-2);
wherein each of the support faces (see examiner comments) of the upper and lower horizontal edge faces (top/bottom edge faces of 3) is recessed relative to (Fig. 1-2; as no point of reference is provided, being recessed vertically above with respect to the contact face; in other words, the bottom of 102c is recessed from the contact faces, and the top of 102a is also recessed upwards from the contact faces) the respective contact faces (see examiner comments) such that, along a vertical direction (Fig. 1-2) of the panel (3), the support face (see examiner comments) of the upper horizontal edge face (top edge of 3) is positioned below (Fig. 1-2) the respective contact face (see examiner comments) of the upper horizontal edge face (top edge of 3) and the support face (see examiner comments) of the lower horizontal edge face (lower edge of 3) is positioned above (Fig. 1-2) the respective contact face (see examiner comments) of the lower horizontal edge face (lower edge of 3), to receive the support plate (2, 11, 21) between (Fig. 1-2) the panel (3) and the bottom-adjacent panel (bottom 3) when the cladding assembly (Fig. 1-2) is assembled (Fig. 1-2).
Re claim 2, Wang discloses the cladding assembly of claim 1, wherein the support face (see examiner comments) is recessed to a depth corresponding to a half of a thickness (the language does not limit to exactly a depth of half the thickness, as “recessed to a depth” can include recessing more than the claimed depth, and “corresponding to” does not require equality; language stating similar to “the support face is recessed a depth of half a thickness” could alter this interpretation) of the support plate (2, 11, 21).
Re claim 3, Wang discloses the cladding assembly of claim 1, wherein the contact face (see examiner comments) of the lower horizontal edge face (bottom edge of upper 1302) is configured to abut (Fig. 1-2) the contact face (see examiner comments) of the upper horizontal edge face (top edge of bottom 3) of the bottom-adjacent panel (bottom 3) to conceal the anchor (Fig. 1-2) when the cladding assembly (Fig. 1-2) is assembled (Fig. 1-2).
Re claim 11, Wang discloses the cladding assembly of claim 1, wherein the anchor (1, 2, 11, 21)) further comprises a spacing tab (11, 21) extending from the fixed plate (1), the spacing tab (11, 21) being configured to space (Fig. 1-2) the rear face (right of 3) of the panel (3) apart from the vertical architectural structure (4) to define a continuous air gap (between 3 and 4) between the panel (3) and the vertical architectural structure (4).
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) 4 , 8-10, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN111946003).
Re claim 4, Wang discloses the cladding assembly of claim 1, wherein the anchor (1, 2, 11, 21) is a first anchor (1, 2, 11, 21) configured to secure a lower end (bottom of 3) of the panel (3) to the vertical architectural structure (4), but fails to disclose the cladding assembly further comprising a second anchor having the same configuration as the first anchor, the second anchor being configured to secure an upper end of the panel to the vertical architectural structure when the cladding assembly is assembled.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cladding assembly of Wang further comprising a second anchor having the same configuration as the first anchor, the second anchor being configured to secure an upper end of the panel to the vertical architectural structure when the cladding assembly is assembled in order to increase strength and rigidity of the connection the vertical architectural structure. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 8, Wang discloses the cladding assembly of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the longitudinal groove of the upper and lower horizontal edge faces defines an arcuate surface extending between the contact face and the support face of the upper and lower panels.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cladding assembly of Wang wherein the longitudinal groove of the upper and lower horizontal edge faces defines an arcuate surface extending between the contact face and the support face of the upper and lower panels in order to provide simple manner of assembly that allows for sliding and locking into place, instead of what is a rigid snap-fit assembly. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 9, Wang as modified discloses the cladding assembly of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the arcuate surface of the longitudinal groove of the upper and lower horizontal edge faces comprises an inverted bell curve shape.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cladding assembly of Wang wherein the arcuate surface of the longitudinal groove of the upper and lower horizontal edge faces comprises an inverted bell curve shape in order to provide simple manner of assembly that allows for sliding and locking into place, instead of what is a rigid snap-fit assembly, per the above. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 10, Wang as modified discloses the cladding assembly of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the retention tab of the anchor comprises a curved shape configured to engage the arcuate surface of the longitudinal groove of the lower horizontal edge face.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cladding assembly of Wang wherein the retention tab of the anchor comprises a curved shape configured to engage the arcuate surface of the longitudinal groove of the lower horizontal edge face in order to provide simple manner of assembly that allows for sliding and locking into place, instead of what is a rigid snap-fit assembly, per the above. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 17, Wang discloses a method of assembling (Fig. 1-3 showing the product assembled) a cladding assembly (Fig. 1-2) to at least partially cover (Fig. 1-2) a vertical architectural structure (4), the method comprising:
providing (Fig. 1-2 showing 3 provided) a panel (3) of the cladding assembly (Fig. 1-2);
securing (Fig. 1-2 showing 1, 2, 11, and 21 secured) a first anchor (1, 2, 11, 21) of the cladding assembly (Fig. 1-2) to a surface (right surface of 107) of the vertical architectural structure (4);
selectively mounting (Fig. 1-2 showing 3 selectively mounted) the panel (3) onto the first anchor (1, 2, 11, 21) in either of an upright configuration (Fig. 1-2) and an upturned configuration wherein, in each of the upright configuration and the upturned configuration (Fig. 1-2), one of upper and lower longitudinal grooves (31) of the panel (3) is positionable as (Fig. 1-2) a lower longitudinal groove (31) of the panel (3) with a retention tab (see examiner comments) of the first anchor (1, 2, 11, 21), the retention tab (see examiner comments) of the first anchor (1, 2, 11, 21) being configured to engage with (Fig. 1-2) a rearward portion (rear portion of 31) of the lower longitudinal groove (31) of the panel (3),
but fails to disclose the one of the upper and lower longitudinal grooves as arcuate, the lower longitudinal groove as arcuate, and securing a second anchor of the cladding assembly to the surface of the vertical architectural structure at a distance above the first anchor corresponding to a height of the panel to secure the panel to the vertical architectural structure.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wang with the one of the upper and lower longitudinal grooves as arcuate, the lower longitudinal groove as arcuate in order to provide simple manner of assembly that allows for sliding and locking into place, instead of what is a rigid snap-fit assembly. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
In addition, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wang with securing a second anchor of the cladding assembly to the surface of the vertical architectural structure at a distance above the first anchor corresponding to a height of the panel to secure the panel to the vertical architectural structure in order to increase strength and rigidity of the connection the vertical architectural structure. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 18, Wang as modified discloses the method of claim 17, wherein securing the second anchor (as modified above) of the cladding assembly (Fig. 1-2) to the surface (right surface of 4) of the vertical architectural structure (4) comprises engaging a retention tab (see examiner comments) of the second anchor (as modified above) with an upper longitudinal groove (31) of the panel (3), the retention tab (see examiner comments) of the second anchor (as modified above) having a corresponding shape (Fig. 1-2),
but fails to disclose the upper longitudinal groove as arcuate and the retention tab of the second anchor having an arcuate shape.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wang with the upper longitudinal groove as arcuate and the retention tab of the second anchor having an arcuate shape in order to provide simple manner of assembly that allows for sliding and locking into place, instead of what is a rigid snap-fit assembly. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 20, Wang as modified discloses the method of claim 17, wherein mounting the panel (3) onto the first anchor (1, 2, 11, 21) further comprises engaging a rear face (rear of 3) of the panel (3) with a spacing tab (11, 21) of the first anchor (1, 2, 11, 21) to space the rear face (rear of 3) of the panel (3) from the surface (left surface of 4) of the vertical architectural structure (4) so as to define a continuous air gap (between 3 and 4) between the panel (3) and the vertical architectural structure (4).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN111946003) in view of MacPherson et al (“MacPherson”) (US 2019/0330856).
Re claim 7, Wang discloses the cladding assembly of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein each of the front face and the vertical edge faces of the panel includes a textured decorative surface.
However, MacPherson discloses wherein the front face (of 3000) of the panel (3000) includes a textured decorative surface ([0124]).
It would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cladding assembly of Wang wherein the front face of the panel includes a textured decorative surface as disclosed by MacPherson in order to increase aesthetic appeal or to provide a brick or stone effect ([0124]).
In addition, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cladding assembly of Wang, as modified by MacPherson wherein the vertical edge faces of the panel includes a textured decorative surface in order to increase aesthetic appeal and provide uniformity of aesthetics from a side perspective.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN111946003) in view of Fifield et al (“Fifield”) (US 2012/0266554).
Re claim 12, Wang discloses the cladding assembly of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the panel comprises a drainage channel extending from the longitudinal groove of at least one of the upper and lower horizontal edge faces, to the rear face of the panel, the drainage channel being configured to convey a fluid from the longitudinal groove of the corresponding one of the upper and lower horizontal edge faces to the continuous air gap.
However, Fifield discloses wherein the panel (Fig. 22, 350) comprises a drainage channel (353) extending from the longitudinal groove (351) of at least one of the upper and lower horizontal edge faces (upper face of 320) to the rear face (350) of the panel (320), the drainage channel (352) being configured to convey a fluid from ([0168]) the longitudinal groove (351) of the corresponding one of the upper and lower horizontal edge faces (upper face of 320) to the continuous air gap (rear of 350, per the above; see also Fig. 32).
It would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cladding assembly of Wang wherein the panel comprises a drainage channel extending from the longitudinal groove of at least one of the upper and lower horizontal edge faces, to the rear face of the panel, the drainage channel being configured to convey a fluid from the longitudinal groove of the corresponding one of the upper and lower horizontal edge faces to the continuous air gap as disclosed by Fifield in order to disposed of excess water ([0168]).
Re claim 13, Wang as modified discloses the cladding assembly of claim 12, wherein the retention tab (see examiner comments) of the anchor (1, 2, 11, 21) is a lower retention tab (Fig. 1-2), the anchor (1, 2, 11, 21) further comprising an upper retention tab (see examiner comments) extending from the support plate (1) and configured to engage with a part (of 31) of the longitudinal groove (31) of the lower horizontal edge face (bottom edge of 3) of the panel (3) when the cladding assembly (Fig. 1-2) is assembled (Fig. 1-2).
Re claim 14, Wang as modified discloses the cladding assembly of claim 12, wherein the upper retention tab (see examiner comments) is configured to restrict a displacement of (Fig. 1-2) the panel in a direction normal to (Fig. 1-2) a surface (of 4) of the vertical architectural structure (4) when the cladding assembly (Fig. 1-2) is assembled (Fig. 1-2).
Re claim 15, Wang as modified discloses the cladding assembly of claim 14, wherein the lower retention tab (see examiner comments) is a first lower retention tab (see examiner comments), but fails to disclose the anchor further comprises a second lower retention tab extending downwardly from the support plate, a ratio between a width of the upper retention tab and a width of at least one of the first and second lower retention tabs being about 2.6:1.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cladding assembly of Wang wherein the anchor further comprises a second lower retention tab extending downwardly from the support plate in order to increase strength and rigidity through the use of additional retention tabs. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
In addition, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cladding assembly of Wang with a ratio between a width of the upper retention tab and a width of at least one of the first and second lower retention tabs being about 2.6:1 in order to ensure sufficient strength and rigidity and rigidity through the use of additional, optimized sized retention tabs. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN111946003) in view of Kasetani (US 2023/0028102).
Re claim 16, Wang discloses the cladding assembly of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the anchor further comprises a brace extending between the fixed plate and the support plate, the brace being configured to maintain a relative angle between the fixed plate and the support plate when the anchor is supporting at least a portion of a weight of the panel.
However, Kasetani discloses wherein the anchor (1) further comprises a brace (23) extending between the fixed plate (8) and the support plate (6), the brace (23) being configured to maintain a relative angle between (Fig. 2) the fixed plate (8) and the support plate (6) when the anchor (1) is supporting at least a portion of a weight (Fig. 3) of the panel (7).
It would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cladding assembly of Wang wherein the anchor further comprises a brace extending between the fixed plate and the support plate, the brace being configured to maintain a relative angle between the fixed plate and the support plate when the anchor is supporting at least a portion of a weight of the panel as disclosed by Kasetani in order to reinforce the bent portion between the fixed plate and support plate ([0030]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN111946003) in view of Lockwood (US 3,060,641).
Re claim 19, Wang as modified discloses the method of claim 17, but fails to disclose wherein securing the second anchor of the cladding assembly to the surface of the vertical architectural structure comprises securing a downwardly angled fastener to the second anchor to apply a compressive force onto the panel.
However, Lockwood discloses wherein securing (Fig. 1 showing 10 secured) the second anchor (10) of the cladding assembly (P) to the surface (left surface of 13) of the vertical architectural structure (13) comprises securing (Fig. 1) a downwardly angled fastener (23) to the second anchor (10) to apply a compressive force onto (Fig. 1) the panel (P).
It would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cladding assembly of Wang wherein securing the second anchor of the cladding assembly to the surface of the vertical architectural structure comprises securing a downwardly angled fastener to the second anchor to apply a compressive force onto the panel as disclosed by Lockwood in order to increase strength and rigidity of the connection to the vertical architectural structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5-6 is/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.
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
727
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Drawings: Applicant’s argument with respect to the drawings is persuasive and objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102/103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot as they do not apply to any of the combination of references relied upon in the above. In addition, Applicant’s 7/29/26 Supplement Response has been considered. However, the arguments presented therein are moot as they do not apply to any of the combination of references relied upon in the above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights