DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 45, 46, 55, and 56 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim pair 45 and 46 and Claim pair 55 and 56 are duplicates and depend from the same independent claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 50, 53, 55, 56, 57, and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsen (U.S. 20100115858) in view of Sherron (U.S. 2,176,980).
In re Claim 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 50, 53, 55, 56, 57, and 59, Olsen teaches a wall system comprising: a plurality of interlocking wall panels (38) secured to one another to for a wall section, each wall panel having a interior surface and an exterior surface and wherein a plurality of wall sections are secured together to form an interior space; each of the wall panels having at least one framing member (58,60), wherein each framing member is configured to interlock with an immediately adjacent framing member of an immediately adjacent wall panel, and at least one framing member being formed with bolt holes. The wall panels with their framing members, are formed as a single unitary piece. (Paragraph 0029; Figures 1-6)
Olsen teaches that at least one framing member (60) is formed as an L-shape. (Figure 5)
Olsen does not teach that the framing member has an embedded nut to receive a bolt.
Sherron teaches securing a protective strip/panel (75) to flooring panel (64) with fasteners (77) in tapped holes (70). (Figure 7, Page 2, Column 1, Lines 70 to Column 2, Line 7) Tapped holes are threaded holes and can be considered embedded nuts.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Olsen with the bolts and embedded nuts taught by XXX. Having an embedded nut/ internal threads would simplify installation and strengthen the connection by embedding the bolt within the frame member rather than just have it frictionally engage the side of the framing member.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e framing member, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. pierce and extrude. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Claim(s) 33, 38, 52, and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsen (U.S. 20100115858) in view of Sherron (U.S. 2,176,980), and in further view of Moskovitch (U.S. 20190177975).
In re Claim 33, 38, 52, and 58, Olsen has been previously discussed but does not teach that each of the interlocked framing members of adjacent panels are formed in an L-shape.
Moskovitch teaches wall panels (12) with framing members (16) both of which that are L-shaped. (Figure 2-4)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Olsen so that both framing members are L-shaped. This would strengthen the interlocking connection between the adjacent panels. In the combination, each of the framing members in that interlock will be L-shaped.
Claim(s) 35, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsen (U.S. 20100115858) in view of Sherron (U.S. 2,176,980), and in further view of Hale (U.S. 469,635).
In re Claim 35, 44, 51, 54, Olsen has been previously discussed but does not teach a floor panel having a substantially planar surface and at least one perimeter portion of the floor panel being turned up, forming a turned-up portion, wherein the turned-up portion is attached to the interior surface of at least one wall panel.
Hale teaches a floor panel (17,21) having a substantially planar surface and at least one perimeter portion of the floor panel being turned up, forming a turned-up portion (19,20), wherein the turned-up portion is attached to the interior surface of at least one wall panel (4). It is formed as a single unitary piece. (Figures 1-6)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to modify Olsen with a floor panel with a turned-up portion. This would simplify construction and result in a contiguous floor panel to wall connection.
In re Claim 40, 43, 45, 46, 49, Olsen teaches a wall system comprising a plurality of interlocking wall panels (38) secured to one another to form a wall section; each of the wall panels having at least one framing member (58-60). wherein each framing member is configured to interlock with an immediately adjacent framing member of an immediately adjacent wall panel. At least one framing member being formed with bolt holes. The wall panels with their framing members, are formed as a single unitary piece. (Paragraph 0029; Figures 1-6)
Olsen does not teach that the framing member has an embedded nut to receive a bolt.
Sherron teaches securing a protective strip/panel (75) to flooring panel (64) with fasteners (77) in tapped holes (70). (Figure 7, Page 2, Column 1, Lines 70 to Column 2, Line 7) Tapped holes are threaded holes and can be considered embedded nuts.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Olsen with the bolts and embedded nuts taught by XXX. Having an embedded nut/ internal threads would simplify installation and strengthen the connection by embedding the bolt within the frame member rather than just have it frictionally engage the side of the framing member.
Olsen has been previously discussed but does not teach a floor panel having a substantially planar surface and at least one perimeter portion of the floor panel being turned up, forming a turned-up portion, wherein the turned-up portion is attached to the interior surface of at least one wall panel.
Hale teaches a floor panel (17,21) having a substantially planar surface and at least one perimeter portion of the floor panel being turned up, forming a turned-up portion (19,20), wherein the turned-up portion is attached to the interior surface of at least one wall panel (4). (Figures 1-6)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to modify Olsen with a floor panel with a turned-up portion. This would simplify construction and result in a contiguous floor panel to wall connection.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e framing member, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. pierce and extrude. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In re Claim 41 and 47, Olsen teaches that at least one framing member (60) is formed as an L-shape. (Figure 5)
Claim(s) 42 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsen (U.S. 20100115858) in view of Sherron (U.S. 2,176,980), and Hale (U.S. 469,635) and in further view of Moskovitch (U.S. 20190177975).
In re Claim 42 and 48, Olsen has been previously discussed but does not teach that each of the interlocked framing members of adjacent panels are formed in an L-shape.
Moskovitch teaches wall panels (12) with framing members (16) both of which that are L-shaped. (Figure 2-4)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Olsen so that both framing members are L-shaped. This would strengthen the interlocking connection between the adjacent panels. In the combination, each of the framing members in that interlock will be L-shaped.
Claim(s) 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsen (U.S. 20100115858) in view of Sherron (U.S. 2,176,980) and Hale (U.S. 469,635), and in further view of Moskovitch (U.S. 20190177975).
In re Claim 60, Olsen teaches a wall system comprising: a plurality of interlocking wall panels (38) secured to one another to for a wall section, each wall panel having a interior surface and an exterior surface and wherein a plurality of wall sections are secured together to form an interior space; each of the wall panels having at least one framing member (58,60), wherein each framing member is configured to interlock with an immediately adjacent framing member of an immediately adjacent wall panel, and at least one framing member being formed with bolt holes. The wall panels with their framing members, are formed as a single unitary piece. (Paragraph 0029; Figures 1-6)
Olsen teaches that at least one framing member (60) is formed as an L-shape. (Figure 5)
Olsen does not teach that the framing member has an embedded nut to receive a bolt.
Sherron teaches securing a protective strip/panel (75) to flooring panel (64) with fasteners (77) in tapped holes (70). (Figure 7, Page 2, Column 1, Lines 70 to Column 2, Line 7) Tapped holes are threaded holes and can be considered embedded nuts.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Olsen with the bolts and embedded nuts taught by XXX. Having an embedded nut/ internal threads would simplify installation and strengthen the connection by embedding the bolt within the frame member rather than just have it frictionally engage the side of the framing member.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e framing member, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. pierce and extrude. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Olsen does not teach a floor panel having a substantially planar surface and at least one perimeter portion of the floor panel being turned up, forming a turned-up portion, wherein the turned-up portion is attached to the interior surface of at least one wall panel.
Hale teaches a floor panel (17,21) having a substantially planar surface and at least one perimeter portion of the floor panel being turned up, forming a turned-up portion (19,20), wherein the turned-up portion is attached to the interior surface of at least one wall panel (4). It is formed as a single unitary piece. (Figures 1-6)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to modify Olsen with a floor panel with a turned-up portion. This would simplify construction and result in a contiguous floor panel to wall connection.
Olsen does not teach that each of the interlocked framing members of adjacent panels are formed in an L-shape.
Moskovitch teaches wall panels (12) with framing members (16) both of which that are L-shaped. (Figure 2-4)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Olsen so that both framing members are L-shaped. This would strengthen the interlocking connection between the adjacent panels. In the combination, each of the framing members in that interlock will be L-shaped.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571) 272-6754. 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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights