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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 10-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 大芦 修次 Osuga (JP-H05261634-A) as provided by (JP-H05261634-A) machine translation as an English language equivalent.
Claim 1:
Osuga discloses a method for producing multi-part building elements comprising a plurality of supporting elements (1a, 1b) (fig. 1, ¶1, 24) comprising:
positioning the supporting elements (1a, 1b) on a work table (5a, 5b) of a support structure station (5) (fig. 1, ¶1, 24);
producing, on the work table (5a, 5b), a support structure (1) by fastening supporting elements (1a, 1b) to one another and/or fixing the supporting elements (1a, 1b) to one another (fig. 1, ¶22-24);
providing and depositing, at a covering station (8), a slab-shaped component (4) on the support structure (1) (fig. 1, ¶22-25); wherein the slab-shaped component (4) is deposited in such a manner that the support structure (1) is at least approximately covered on one side (fig. 1, ¶22-25); and
fastening, at the covering station (8), the slab-shaped component (4) to the support structure (1) (fig. 1, ¶22-25).
Claim 10:
Osuga discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of supporting elements (1a, 1b) are processed by a processing device (automatic nailing machine) on a main production line (5) so as to form a support structure (1) of a building element (P), while a component (2a, 2b) of a building element (P), is simultaneously processed on a prefabrication line (6/7) which has a prefabrication installation in the form of an additional processing device (7a, 7b) for processing a component (2a, 2b) of a building element (P) (fig. 1, ¶23-25).
Claim 11:
Osuga discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the component (2a, 2b) is processed on a prefabrication line (6/7) and subsequently conveyed to a processing device (working table, 9a) of the main production line (9) in order to produce a building element (P) (fig. 23, ¶26).
Claim 12:
Osuga discloses the method according to claim 1, comprising further method steps:
turning the building element in such a manner that the support structure (1) bears on the slab-shaped component (4) on a work table (9) in such a manner that a space between the supporting elements (1a, 1b) is accessible (fig. 1, ¶25, 26);
inserting a structural component (2a, 2b) onto the slab-shaped component in the space between the supporting elements (1a, 1b) of the building element (fig. 1, ¶23-25, 26);
incorporating a filler material (3) into the space between the supporting elements (fig. 1, ¶23-25, 26);
wherein the filler material (3) is distributed in the space and at least approximately held in position by means of the structural component (2a, 2b) (fig. 1, ¶23-25, 26).
Claim 13:
Osuga discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein the filler material comprises a fibrous web insertable material (glass wool) (fig. 1, ¶22).
Claim 14:
Osuga discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein the structural component (2a, 2b) has a three-dimensional structure with a plurality of struts which in top view has the shape of a multiplicity of rectangles (fig. 1, ¶22).
Claim 16:
Osuga discloses the method according to claim 12, comprising a further method step, wherein the support structure (1) is populated with slab-shaped components (4), wherein the slab-shaped components (4) are deposited on the support structure (1) in such a manner that a filler material (3) is enclosed from a plurality of sides by the support structure (1) and the slab-shaped components (4) (fig. 1, ¶22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 大芦 修次 Osuga (JP-H05261634-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yelle et al. (US 2022/0090374 A1).
Claim 2:
Osuga discloses the method according to claim 1; wherein the slab-shaped component (4) is processed on a prefabrication line (6/7) (fig. 1, ¶22-25); and Osuga fails to disclose the slab-shaped component has a dimension which is smaller than the height of the support structure by a difference.
Yelle discloses a method of forming a complete water tight and airtight joint (abstract) comprising a slab-shaped component (2a or 2b) having a dimension which is smaller than the height of the support structure (6) by a difference (half the width of the support structure (6)) (figs. 1-2, ¶16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the support structure/slab-shaped component combination of Osuga to incorporate the overlap/recess arrangement as taught by Yelle in order to facilitate adjoining panel members to share a common supporting element and further facilitate secure fastening of adjacent panel members to the support structure (Yelle, ¶16). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 6:
Osuga discloses the method according to claim 1; and Osuga fails to disclose a multiplicity of slab-shaped components are deposited on the support structure in such a manner that the slab shaped components form a first layer on the support structure, wherein the contact region of two mutually adjacent slab-shaped components is positioned at least approximately in the center of a supporting element.
Yelle discloses a method of forming a complete water tight and airtight joint (abstract) comprising a multiplicity of slab-shaped components (2a and 2b) are deposited on the support structure (6) in such a manner that the slab shaped components (2a and 2b) form a first layer on the support structure (6), wherein the contact region of two mutually adjacent slab-shaped components (2a and 2b) is positioned at least approximately in the center of a supporting element (6) (figs. 1-2, ¶1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the support structure/slab-shaped component combination of Osuga to incorporate the overlap/recess arrangement as taught by Yelle in order to facilitate adjoining panel members to share a common supporting element and further facilitate secure fastening of adjacent panel members to the support structure (Yelle, ¶16). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Osuga employs slab-shaped components formed of engineered wood panels in combination with framing members which are typically wood studs. It is a matter of physical fact that such engineered wood panels exhibit a linear coefficient of expansion in the plane of the panel that is significantly greater than the longitudinal coefficient of expansion of solid wood studs, typically by a factor within the claimed range of 1.5 to 10 times. Claim 6 does not require any selection or use of the coefficient of expansion to achieve a functional result, and the claimed ratio is therefore an inherent property of the materials disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton and selection of commonly used panel and framing materials having differing expansion coefficients within the claimed range represents routine material choice in wall construction.
Claims 3-5, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 大芦 修次 Osuga (JP-H05261634-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Considine (US 4,841,710).
Claim 3:
Osuga discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the slab-shaped component is processed in a prefabrication line (8). Osuga fails to disclose or fairly suggest the slab-shaped component at least partially has a clearance for a passage, a door, a window and/or an additional component.
Considine discloses a method for producing multi-part building elements comprising a plurality of supporting elements (c2, ll. 51-53), comprising:
positioning the supporting elements (sub-components) on a work table (208) (fig. 23, c8, ll. 44-48);
producing, on the work table, a support structure by assembling supporting elements (sub-components) on the work table (208) (fig. 23, c8, ll. 44-48);
providing and depositing a slab-shaped component (32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) on the support structure (assembled sub-components) (fig. 16, c6, ll. 35-36 and c9, ll. 28-30); wherein the slab-shaped component (32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) is deposited in such a manner that the support structure (assembled sub-components) is at least approximately covered on one side (fig. 16, c6, ll. 33-40);
fastening the slab-shaped component (32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) to the support structure (assembled sub-components) (fig. 16, c6, ll. 35-36 and c9, ll. 28-30);
wherein the slab-shaped component (32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) at least partially has a clearance for a passage, a door, a window and/or an additional component (Considine, fig. 23, c5, ll. 65-67 and c7, ll. 53-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the slab-shaped component of Osuga by providing a clearance as taught by Considine in order to accommodate a door or a window (Considine, fig. 23, c5, ll. 65-67 and c7, ll. 53-55). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 4:
Osuga in view of Considine renders obvious the method according to claim 3, wherein the clearance of the slab-shaped component (Osuga, 4 in view of Considine, 32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) is deposited and positioned on the support structure in such a manner that an edge of the slab-shaped component (Osuga, 4 in view of Considine, 32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) is positioned approximately parallel to an edge of a clearance in the building element (Considine, figs. 6 and 8, c5, ll. 50 bridging c6, ll. 3). Considine teaches that wall panel sections are arranged and secured to define window and door openings having straight, rectangular boundaries. As shown and described, the edges of the slab-shaped panel sections that define the openings necessarily extend approximately parallel to the corresponding edges of the clearance. In addition, Considine discloses rectangular window and door openings formed in wall panels which inherently comprise opposing parallel edges, and arranging panel sections to form such openings necessarily results in the claimed parallel relationship.
Claim 5:
Osuga discloses the method according to claim 1, and Osuga fails to disclose or fairly suggest a robot.
Considine discloses a method for producing multi-part building elements comprising a plurality of supporting elements (c2, ll. 51-53), comprising:
positioning the supporting elements (sub-components) on a work table (208) (fig. 23, c8, ll. 44-48);
producing, on the work table, a support structure by assembling supporting elements (sub-components) on the work table (208) (fig. 23, c8, ll. 44-48);
providing and depositing a slab-shaped component (32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) on the support structure (assembled sub-components) (fig. 16, c6, ll. 35-36 and c9, ll. 28-30); wherein the slab-shaped component (32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) is deposited in such a manner that the support structure (assembled sub-components) is at least approximately covered on one side (fig. 16, c6, ll. 33-40);
fastening the slab-shaped component (32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) to the support structure (assembled sub-components) (fig. 16, c6, ll. 35-36 and c9, ll. 28-30);
wherein the slab-shaped component (32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) is deposited, positioned and/or fastened on the support structure by means of a robot (203), wherein the robot (203) selects the slab-shaped component (32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) from a supply of processed slab-shaped components (32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) and additional slab-shaped components (32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) in such a manner that the support structure is at least partially covered, wherein the processed slab-shaped components are conveyed from a prefabrication line (200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207 206) by way of a conveyor unit to the robot (203) (fig. 23, c8, ll. 19-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Osuga by providing a robot as taught by Considine in order to automatically supply slab-shaped components to the Osuga assembly line (Considine, fig. 23, c8, ll. 19-43). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 7:
Osuga discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a slab-shaped component (4) is processed in a third prefabrication installation (6/7); and Osuga fails to disclose or fairly suggest a shading system component.
Considine discloses a method for producing multi-part building elements comprising a plurality of supporting elements (c2, ll. 51-53), comprising:
positioning the supporting elements (sub-components) on a work table (208) (fig. 23, c8, ll. 44-48);
producing, on the work table, a support structure by assembling supporting elements (sub-components) on the work table (208) (fig. 23, c8, ll. 44-48);
providing and depositing a slab-shaped component (32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) on the support structure (assembled sub-components) (fig. 16, c6, ll. 35-36 and c9, ll. 28-30); wherein the slab-shaped component (32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) is deposited in such a manner that the support structure (assembled sub-components) is at least approximately covered on one side (fig. 16, c6, ll. 33-40);
fastening the slab-shaped component (32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) to the support structure (assembled sub-components) (fig. 16, c6, ll. 35-36 and c9, ll. 28-30);
wherein an additional component is added to the slab-shaped component (32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189), wherein the additional component is a part of a shading system (window cavity, receptacles, switches and fixtures) (Considine, figs. 6 and 8, c1, ll. 60-68 and c5, ll. 50 bridging c6, ll. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, modify the slab-shaped component of Osuga by providing an additional component that is part of a shading system as taught by Considine in order to provide window cavities, receptacles, switches and fixtures (Considine, figs. 6 and 8, c1, ll. 60-68 and c5, ll. 50 bridging c6, ll. 3).
Claim 8:
Osuga in view of Considine renders obvious the method according to claim 7, wherein a slab-shaped component (Osuga, 4 in view of Considine, 32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) is disposed on the support structure in such a manner that the additional component (Considine, window cavity, receptacles, switches and fixtures) of the slab-shaped component (Osuga, 4 in view of Considine, 32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189) protrudes into a space between two supporting elements of the support structure (Considine, figs. 6 and 8, c1, ll. 60-68 and c5, ll. 50 bridging c6, ll. 3).
Claim 9:
Osuga in view of Considine renders obvious the method according to claim 7, wherein the building element has a first layer of slab-shaped components (Osuga, 4 in view of Considine, 32, 62, 82, 102, 112, 114, 132, 162, 182, 189), which has a clearance designed in such a manner that the additional component protrudes (Considine, window cavity, receptacles, switches and fixtures) in the assembled state into the clearance (Considine, figs. 6 and 8, c1, ll. 60-68 and c5, ll. 50 bridging c6, ll. 3).
In an alternative, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osuga as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fu et al. (US 2024/0059856 A1).
Claim 2:
Osuga discloses the method according to claim 1; wherein the slab-shaped component is process in a prefabrication line (8) (fig. 1, ¶22-25); and, Osuga fails to disclose or fairly suggest the slab-shaped component has a dimension which is smaller than the height of the support structure by a difference.
Fu discloses a method of providing a sheathing system that envelops a building structure (abstract) wherein sheathing system comprises a slab-shaped component (104 and/or 106) having a dimension which is smaller than the height of a support structure (102) by a difference (figs. 1A, 2A and 2B, ¶74, 76, 77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the slab-shape component of Osuga by providing a slab-shaped component having a dimension which is smaller than the height of the support structure by a difference as taught by Fu in order to facilitate secure fastening of adjacent slab-shaped component members. See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osuga as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Moser (WO 2015/121762 A2).
Claim 15:
Osuga discloses the method according to claim 12; and Osuga fails to disclose the structural component comprises a fibrous material with a plurality of approximately hexagonal honeycomb structures, and has a slab-shaped fibrous element which covers the structural component on one side and holds a bulk material at least approximately in position, wherein the bulk material comprises a material with a bulk density of 1000 kg/m³ to 2000 kg/m³.
Moser discloses structural insulated building panels consisting of an insulating core including a fibrous material with a plurality of approximately hexagonal honeycomb structures (composite honeycomb), and has a slab-shaped fibrous element which covers the structural component on one side and holds a bulk material at least approximately in position, wherein the bulk material comprises a material with a bulk density of 1000 kg/m³ to 2000 kg/m³, preferably 1400 kg/m3 to 1600 kg/m³ (cement that is reinforced with fibers to form cement composites – fiber cement) (p1, ll. 28-35).
Osuga discloses prefabricated wall panels in which slab-shaped structural elements retain structural components during panel assembly. Moser describes, as known in the art, prefabricated wall panels comprising composite honeycomb core materials and fiber-reinforced cement composite structural layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to install the composite honeycomb core and fiber-cement slab materials acknowledged in Moser within the prefabricated wall panel structures taught by Osuga, as the combination represents the predictable use of known materials for their well-known and established functions. See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 18 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claimed invention to resolve the matter. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 18 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 大芦 修次 Osuga (JP-H05261634-A) as provided by (JP-H05261634-A) machine translation as an English language equivalent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Collins et al. (US 11,060,286 B2) discloses prefabricated wall panels. van der Lely (US 3,958,320) discloses a method and factory for making prefabricated wall panels. Hauptli (US2391052) discloses a method of making a wallboard panel. Perkins (US 2578085) discloses a method of assembling panels on a support.
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 Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights