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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the third or fourth edge upper edge first lower lip upper surface “continuous with” the first or second edge upper edge second lower lip upper surface when the panels are assembled must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from claim 19. Fig. 14A shows first lower lip 139, but no lip upper surface, and in any case, fig. 14A does not show second lower lip 119 to illustrate the claimed surface continuity when assembled. Fig. 10 shows second lower lip 119, but no lip upper surface, and in any case, fig. 10 does not show first lower lip 139 to illustrate the claimed surface continuity when assembled. Fig. 5B is not helpful because the panels are not shown locked as claimed, only lower lips 119 and 139 of one panel is shown (not the continuity of the two panel lower surfaces that is claimed), and neither of the lip upper surfaces is apparently shown. Also, the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion “contiguous with each other such as to extend continuously” along the third or fourth edge and the first or second edge must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from claim 24. Finally, the lower surface of the first upper lip portion and a lower surface of the second upper lip portion “contiguous with each other such as to extend continuously” along the other of the third or fourth edge and the other of the first or second edge must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from claim 25. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 19-32 and 38 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.
Claim 19 recites the third or fourth edge upper edge first lower lip upper surface is “continuous with” the first or second edge upper edge second lower lip upper surface when the panels are assembled. This is confusing. The third or fourth edge (the long panel edges) upper edge first lower lip upper surface is 139 and first or second edge (the short panel edges) upper edge second lower lip upper surface is 119. When assembled, these two planar surfaces apparently meet at the panel corners, although such is not disclosed in the written specification or shown in any drawing. The claim recites the lip upper surfaces being continuous when the panel is assembled, but continuous means unbroken or uninterrupted. How can the lip surfaces be unbroken or uninterrupted when they are apparently both broken and interrupted at the gap between the surfaces? There is necessarily a gap because the one lower surface is on one panel and the other lower surface is on the “other” of the panels. It is understood how the surfaces might “continuously define” a datum plane as disclosed, the relationship between the two different surfaces being that they continuously define a datum plane. What is not understood is how one surface is continuous with the other when there is a gap between them, a gap necessarily being a discontinuity breaking and interrupting the two surfaces. The meets and bounds of the claim regarding the indefinite limitation “continuous with” used to describe a relationship between the lip upper surfaces are further unclear because little written disclosure is provided regarding continuous lip upper surfaces (no mention is made of any lip upper surface at all), and the drawings do not help show what is meant by the lip upper surfaces being continuous. It is assumed the claim recites that a first lower lip upper surface is coplanar with a second lower lip upper surface.
Claim 24 recites an upper surface of the first lower lip portion is continuous with an upper surface of the second lower lip portion when the panel edges are locked, wherein the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion are “contiguous” with each other such as to extend “continuously” along the third or fourth edge and the first or second edge, which is confusing. How can the upper surface of the first lower lip portion be continuous with an upper surface of the second lower lip portion, and the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion also be “contiguous” with each other? Continuous means unbroken or interrupted and contiguous means touching or sharing the same border. As such how can the relationship between the upper surfaces be both that the surfaces are unbroken or interrupted and touching or sharing the same border? The two terms appear to be incompatible. What does an assembled panel set look like at the upper surfaces when they are both continuous and contiguous to each other? It is assumed claim 24 recites the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion extend continuously along the third or fourth edge and the first or second edge. Claim 25 is confusing for the same reason claim 24 is unclear.
Claim 38 recites that a lower surface of the first upper lip portion and a lower surface of the second upper lip portion are “continuous” with each other, which is confusing. While it is understood how the first lower lip upper surface and second lower lip upper surface define a continuous plane when the panel edges are locked as recited in independent claim 33, it is unclear how the lower surface of the first upper lip portion and a lower surface of the second upper lip portion can be continuous with each other when there is necessarily a gap because the one lower surface is on one panel and the other lower surface is on the “other” of the panels, the limitation “continuous” meaning unbroken or uninterrupted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 19-31 and 33-38 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte (10,214,916) in view of Schäfers (11,608,646).
19, 21, and 22. Schulte discloses a set of similar or essentially identical building panels, comprising:
a first mechanical locking system (9 and the projection above 9 on panel 2, Fig. 2) at respective parallel and opposite third and fourth edges (13,14) being long edges of the panel, the first mechanical locking system configured to cooperate for horizontal and vertical locking between two adjacent building panels, and
a second locking system (9 and the projection above 9 on panel 2, Fig. 1 or 7) at respective parallel and opposite first and second edges, configured to cooperate for horizontal and vertical locking of two adjacent building panels
wherein an upper edge portion of one of the third edge or fourth edge, comprises a first lower lip portion configured to cooperate with a first upper lip portion of an upper edge portion of the other of the third and fourth edge of an adjacent panel when said third and fourth edges are assembled in locking position (Fig. 2 shows such first upper and lower lips represented by upper and lower projections located at the upper edge),
wherein an upper edge portion of one of the first or the second edge comprises a second lower lip portion configured to cooperate which a second upper lip portion of an upper edge portion of the other of the first and second edge of an adjacent panel when said first and second edges are assembled in locking position (Fig. 7 shows such first upper and lower lips represented by upper and lower projections located at the upper edge).
Schulte teaches, as best understood, a first lower lip upper surface ll1us is coplanar with a second lower lip upper surface ll2us when the panel edges are locked (figs. 1-2 show the panels locked and the two surfaces coplanar, as both are show as being the same distance from the panel top surface, and Schulte also teaches that it is old in the art for panels to “have continuous grooves on a longitudinal side and on an end side, and on the respectively opposite longitudinal side or end side continuous tongues”, col. 1, lines 24-27). Should Applicant disagree that Sculte teaches first lower lip upper surface ll1us, again as best understood, coplanar with second lower lip upper surface ll2us when the panel edges are locked, Schaefers, fig. 7, teaches a first lower lip upper surface (the upper surface on the one lower lip that intersect sealing plane 66) coplanar with a second lower lip upper surface (the upper surface on the other lower lip that intersect sealing plane 66) when the panel edges are locked, col. 10, lines 15-46. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for first lower lip upper surface ll1us to be coplanar with the second lower lip upper surface when the panel edges are locked so that “surfaces of both pairs of edges…are in sealing contact”, col. 10, lines 42-45.
PNG
media_image1.png
377
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figs. 1-2, (Schulte)
20. Schulte in view of Schäfers teaches the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching the upper surface of the first lower lip portion is a planar horizontal surface, and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion is a planar horizontal surface, figs. 1-2.
23. Schulte in view of Schäfers teaches the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion define a continuous datum plane (Schulte teaches the upper surfaces define a continuous datum plane as shown in the drawings and Schulte in view of Schäfers teaching the Schulte upper surfaces on Schafers datum plane 66).
24-25. Schulte in view of Schäfers teaches the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching, as best understood, the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion extend continuously along the third or fourth edge and the first or second edge, see figs. 1-2, the lower surfaces of the upper lips also extending continuously along the third or fourth edge and the first or second edge, see figs. 1-2.
26. Schulte in view of Schäfers teaches the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching a lower surface of the first upper lip portion is configured to bear on the upper surface of the first lower lip portion when adjacent panels are assembled in locking position by means of the first locking system, figs. 1-2 show such a bearing relationship as the claimed surfaces are in direct contact when assembled.
27. Schulte in view of Schäfers teaches the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching a lower surface of the second upper lip portion is configured to bear on the upper surface of the second lower lip portion when adjacent panels are assembled in locking position by means of the second locking system, figs. 1-2 show such a bearing relationship as the claimed surfaces are in direct contact when assembled.
28. Schulte in view of Schäfers teaches the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching the first and second locking systems each comprise a locking tongue and a tongue groove, wherein said lip portions are disposed between a respective of said locking tongue or tongue groove and the front surface of the panel, abstract.
29. Schulte in view of Schafers discloses the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching wherein said upper edge portion of the first edge and third edge, each comprises a vertically extending edge portion extending from the front surface followed by a contiguous bend inwards towards a centre of the panel (as shown in Figs. 1-2, there is vertical portions 5 and 17, then below that an angled relief portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also include such structure on the second and fourth edges for addition relief and easier assembly.
30. Schulte in view of Schafers discloses the set according to claim 1, Schulte further teaching wherein said upper edge portion of the first edge and third edge each comprises a vertically extending edge portion extending from the front surface followed by a contiguous bend outwards away from the centre of the panel (as shown in Figs. 1-2, there is vertical portions 5 and 17, then below that an angled relief portion).
31. Schulte in view of Schafers discloses the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching at least one pocket is formed between the first edge of a panel and the second edge of an adjacent panel when the panels are configured in assembled position, said pocket configured to receive a sealant (as shown in Fig. 2, there is vertical portion 17, then below that an angled relief portion forming a pocket).
33 and 38. Schulte discloses a set of similar or essentially identical building panels, comprising:
a first mechanical locking system (9 and the projection above 9 on panel 2, Fig. 2) at respective parallel and opposite third and fourth edges (13,14) being long edges of the panel, the first mechanical locking system configured to cooperate for horizontal and vertical locking between two adjacent building panels, and
a second locking system (9 and the projection above 9 on panel 2, Fig. 1 or 7) at respective parallel and opposite first and second edges, configured to cooperate for horizontal and vertical locking of two adjacent building panels
wherein an upper edge portion of one of the third edge or fourth edge, comprises a first lower lip portion configured to cooperate with a first upper lip portion of an upper edge portion of the other of the third and fourth edge of an adjacent panel when said third and fourth edges are assembled in locking position (Fig. 2 shows such first upper and lower lips represented by upper and lower projections located at the upper edge),
wherein an upper edge portion of one of the first or the second edge comprises a second lower lip portion configured to cooperate which a second upper lip portion of an upper edge portion of the other of the first and second edge of an adjacent panel when said first and second edges are assembled in locking position (Fig. 7 shows such first upper and lower lips represented by upper and lower projections located at the upper edge).
Schulte teaches a first lower lip upper surface ll1us and a second lower lip upper surface ll2us defining a continuous plane when the panel edges are locked (figs. 1-2 show the panels locked and a continuous plane defined, as both are show as being the same distance from the panel top surface, and Schulte also teaches that it is old in the art for panels to “have continuous grooves on a longitudinal side and on an end side, and on the respectively opposite longitudinal side or end side continuous tongues”, col. 1, lines 24-27).
Should Applicant disagree that Sculte teaches the first lower lip upper surface ll1us and a second lower lip upper surface ll2us defining a continuous plane when the panel edges are locked, Schaefers, fig. 7, teaches a first lower lip upper surface (the upper surface on the one lower lip that intersect sealing plane 66) and a second lower lip upper surface )the upper surface on the other lower lip that intersect sealing plane 66) defining a continuous plane when the panel edges are locked, col. 10, lines 15-46. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define such a plane when the panel edges are locked so that “surfaces of both pairs of edges…are in sealing contact”, col. 10, lines 42-45.
34. Schulte in view of Schäfers teaches the set according to claim 33, Schulte further teaching the upper surface of the first lower lip portion is a planar horizontal surface, and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion is a planar horizontal surface, figs. 1-2.
35-36. Schulte in view of Schäfers teaches the set according to claim 33, Schulte further teaching the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion define a continuous datum plane (Schulte teaches the upper surfaces define a continuous datum plane as shown in the drawings and Schulte in view of Schäfers teaching the Schulte upper surfaces on Schafers datum plane 66).
37. Schulte in view of Schäfers teaches the set according to claim 33, Schulte further teaching a lower surface of the first upper lip portion is configured to bear on the upper surface of the first lower lip portion when adjacent panels are assembled in locking position by means of the first locking system, and a lower surface of the second upper lip portion is configured to bear on the upper surface of the second lower lip portion when adjacent panels are assembled in locking position by means of the second locking system because as shown in figs. 1-2 such a bearing relationship is present due to the direct contact of the adjacent surfaces.
Claim 32 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte in view of Schafers and in further view of Hannig (8,375,672)
32. The references do not expressly disclose the pocket extends vertically below the first and second lower lip portions. Hannig, Fig. 4, teaches a pocket 19 extends vertically below a lip portion (the portion directly above 19 is essentially a lip). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pocket to extend vertically below (instead of above) the first and second lower lip portions to allow more panel edge surface contact area while still providing a space for sealant.
In addition, this limitation appears to be a matter of design choice, as the pocket is disclosed as being either below, above, or both above and below the lip portions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Boo (10,017,948 teaches a first “lip” upper surface is coplanar with a second “lip” upper surface when the panel edges are locked, col. 8, lines 31-65, fig. 6A and 7B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 Glessner can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL J KENNY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights