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 .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-20 and 22 are pending in the application, claims 19, 20, and 22 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 21 has been cancelled.
Amendments to the claim 19, filed on 16 September 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 16 September 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19, 20, and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 September 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites --the plurality of polymer bricks-- in line 4, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "the plurality of
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites --at least of the height-- in line 7, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "at least to[[of]] the height".
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites --the polymer bricks-- in line 7, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "the
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites --the polymer bricks-- in line 10, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "the
With Regards to Claims 2-18: Claims 2 to 18 each recite --The system-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct all instances to read "The cladding system".
With Regards to Claim 2: Claim 2 recites --fluropolymer-- in line 3, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "fluoropolymer
With Regards to Claim 3: Claim 3 recites --patten-- in line 2, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "pattern
With Regards to Claim 6: Claim 6 recites --the first rheology modifier-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "the [[first]] rheology modifier".
With Regards to Claim 11: Claim 11 recites --0.2-0.8 inches (0.5mm-20mm)-- in line 2, which is a typographical error (i.e., there are 25.4 mm per 1 inch, which means that 0.2 inches is 5.08 mm); it is recommended to correct this to read "0.2-0.8 inches (5mm-20mm)
With Regards to Claim 15: Claim 15 recites --Attapulgite-- in line 3, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read " attapulgite".
With Regards to Claim 17: Claim 17 recites --is Wollastonite-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "is wollastonite".
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 1-18 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.
With Regards to Claims 1-18: Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plurality of polymer bricks" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated to read "the plurality of
Claims 2-18, which depend upon claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claim 6: Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first rheology modifier" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated to read "the [[first]] rheology modifier".
With Regards to Claim 8 and 9: Claim 8 recites the limitation --wherein the plurality of bricks comprise a base comprising at least one of the rheology modifier, a dispersing agent, a solvent, a surfactant, an in-can preservative, a dry film preservative, a rust inhibitor, a coalescing agent, and a pH adjuster-- in lines 1 to 3. Claim 4, from which claim 8 depends, recites --the plurality of bricks comprises about 10-25 wt% polymer, about 15-30 wt% calcium carbonate, about 45-60 wt% silica sand, about 0.1-10% water, about 0-5 wt% rheology modifier, and about 1-10% catalyst-- in lines 1 to 3. Claim 8, as written a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention, and the claim is further rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that said limitation of claim 8 is intending to recite the plurality of bricks further comprise the base as claimed; or (2) that said limitation of claim 8 is intending to redefine the composition of the plurality of bricks. For the purposes of examination, the former interpretation will be applied. (Appropriate clarification and correction are requested.)
Claim 9, which depends from claim 8, is rejected for the same reasons recited above.
With Regards to Claims 2, 10, and 11: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation "fiberlass in a range of 70-90% and polymer in a range of 10-30%", and the claim also recites "about 81% fiberglass and 19% fluropolymer" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation "0.2-1 inch", and the claim also recites "about 0.25 inch" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation "greater than 0.4 inch2", and the claim also recites "about 0.6 inch2" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With Regards to Claim 15: Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second rheology modifier" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13, from which claim 15 depends, recites --rheology modifier-- in line 3. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated to read "the
With Regards to Claim 18: Claim 18 recites --the mortar comprises 3-5 wt% recycled material-- in line 1. Claim 13, from which claim 18 depends, recites --the mortar comprises 30-35 wt% pozzolanice material, 40-50 wt% silica sand, 0.1-1 wt% rheology modifier, 2-5% redispersible polymer, about 0.5-1% calcium inosilicate mineral, and 10-15 wt% calcium carbonate-- in lines 2 to 4. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that claim 18 is attempting to redefine the composition of the mortar; or (2) that claim 18 intended to recite that the mortar "further comprises" recycled material. For the purposes of examination, the latter interpretation will be applied and the limitation treated to read "the mortar further comprises 3-5 wt% recycled material".
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooper (EP 0182567 A2).
Regarding Claim 1: Cooper teaches a wall cladding comprising: a plurality of bricks or other slips or tiles (ref. #2) set in a fixative layer (ref. #4) which is affixed to an insulant layer (ref. #6), wherein the fixative is a mortar (figures 1 to 7, and [Pg. 4: li. 4-34] of Cooper). It is also taught by Cooper that prior to the setting of the mortar layer or coating (ref. #62), reinforcement (ref. #64) in the form of steel expanded metal mesh is applied to the layer or coating so as to become embedded therein, and such that the layer or coating exudes through the mesh and is exposed to the exterior thereof (figures 8 to 9 and [Pg. 7: li. 20-25] of Cooper).
Regarding Claim 3: Cooper teaches the open-weave mesh is a first open-weave mesh, and wherein the first open-weave mesh is cut in a pattern configured to interlock a second open-weave mesh of the cladding system (figures 1 to 9 and [Pg. 5: li. 21 to Pg. 35] of Cooper).
Regarding Claim 12: Cooper teaches that the bond pattern is any one of a running bond brick pattern (figure 1 of Cooper).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (EP 0182567 A2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O'Leary (US 3,740,911 A).
Cooper is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 10: Cooper fails to disclose --the height of each of the plurality of bricks is in a range of 0.2-1 inch--.
O'Leary discloses a brick veneer wall construction comprising bricks with thicknesses of 1/2 to 1 1/8 of an inch (e.g., 3/4 inch) (figures 1 to 5 and [Col. 2: li. 49-52] of O'Leary); which anticipates the claimed range of --0.2-1 inch--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the bricks of O'Leary with the bricks of Cooper in order to --the height of each of the plurality of bricks is in a range of 0.2-1 inch--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the bricks of O'Leary with the bricks of Cooper, since such a change would amount to a mere change in size of the brick. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-9, 11, and 13-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Cooper (EP 0182567 A2): Cooper teaches --a cladding system--, wherein Cooper's cladding system further comprises the structure --a wall cladding comprising: a plurality of bricks or other slips or tiles (ref. #2) set in a fixative layer (ref. #4) which is affixed to an insulant layer (ref. #6), wherein the fixative is a mortar; and wherein prior to the setting of the mortar layer or coating (ref. #62), reinforcement (ref. #64) in the form of steel expanded metal mesh is applied to the layer or coating so as to become embedded therein, and such that the layer or coating exudes through the mesh and is exposed to the exterior thereof-- (figures 1 to 9, [Pg. 4: li. 4-34], and [Pg. 7: li. 20-25] of Cooper). However, Cooper does not teach that --the open-weave mesh is a glass fiber reinforcing mesh, the glass fiber comprises fiberglass in a range of 70-90% and polymer in a range of 10-30%-- {instant claim 2}, --the plurality of bricks comprises about 10-25 wt% polymer, about 15-30 wt% calcium carbonate, about 45-60 wt% silica sand, about 0.1-10% water, about 0-5 wt% rheology modifier, and about 1-10% catalyst-- {instant claim 4}, --the area of each of the plurality of holes is greater than 0.4 inch2, and wherein the space is in a range of 0.2-0.8 inches-- {instant claim 11}, or --the mortar comprises: a pozzolanic material, silica sand, a second rheology modifier, redispersible polymer, calcium carbonate, a calcium inosilicate mineral, wherein the mortar comprises 30-35 wt% pozzolanice material, 40-50 wt% silica sand, 0.1-1 wt% rheology modifier, 2-5% redispersible polymer, about 0.5-1% calcium inosilicate mineral, and 10-15 wt% calcium carbonate-- {instant claim 13}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Cooper with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Cooper in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goldsmith (US 2018/0051471 A1) discloses a panel system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights