DETAILED ACTION
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, “a first thin brick on the first portion of the fiber-reinforced backing layer and a second thin brick on the second portion of the fiber-reinforced backing layer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification. The specification and Figures 3 and 4 shows one-piece L-shaped bricks (16) attached to the angled first and second portions of backing layer (14). However, Claim 47 specifies a first thin brick on the first portion of the backing layer and a second thin break on the second portion of the backing layer. This two-brick corner configuration is not supported by the specification or drawings and constitutes new matter and therefore. This language must be removed from the claim.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 describes a stack bond configuration as a staggered orientation. A stacked bond is not staggered. This discrepancy renders the scope of the claim indefinite. An appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9, 30, and 45 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunsaker (U.S. 20100127531 in view of Heidemann (U.S. 20090255202) and in further view of Terwilliger (U.S. 4,079,554).
In re Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 Hunsaker teaches thin brick sheet with a backing layer (110) that is flexible and non-stretchable to some degree, thin brick layer a plurality of thin bricks (130) positioned in a staggered orientation with a fixed horizontal spacing between each of the plurality of thin bricks, wherein the staggered orientation comprises: a first row of thin bricks aligned with a first edge and a second edge of the fiber- reinforced backing layer, the second edge opposite the first edge; and a second row of thin bricks underneath the first row of thin bricks, the second row of thin bricks laterally staggered relative to the first row of thin bricks; and an (140) adhesive layer adhering the plurality of thin bricks to the backing layer (110). (Figures 1,2)
Hunsaker does not teach a fiber-reinforced backing layer or an anti-adhesive layer is that is removably positioned on a back side of the fiber-reinforced backing layer to inhibit adhering of the fiber enforced thin brick sheet to an external surface.
Heidemann teaches floor tile system where floor tiles/bricks (4) are adhered to a fiberglass backing (8) (fiber reinforced) by an adhesive (9). In the combination, this fiber-reinforced backing layer can be considered a fiber reinforced sheet. A fiberglass backing has fiberglass fibers. Figure 2 show that the fiberglass sheet is a grid. (Figures 1-3, Paragraphs 0005 and 0011))
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Hunsaker brick panel with the fiberglass backing layer taught by Heidemann. Fiberglass is light, flexible, durable, substantially non stretchable, and corrosion resistant. A fiberglass backing has fiberglass fibers.
Terwilliger teaches a simulated brick panel where simulated brick are mounted to a backing layer (1). The backing layer has an adhesive that is covered by an anti-adhesive layer (3,7) is that is removably positioned on an adhesive back side of the fiber-reinforced backing layer. (Figures 1,2)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Hunsaker with the teaching of Terwilliger. This combination would allow the simulated thin brick panel/sheet to by stored and then readily and quickly installed.
In re Claim 2, the modified Hunsaker has been previously discussed and also states that the bricks (130) may comprise any type known in the art. (Paragraph 130) The examiner takes official notice that clay, wire cut and cast bricks are conventional and well known in the art and the examiner takes official notice of it. Bricks are typically made from clay. Wire cut bricks are also clay bricks. Cast bricks are also well known. The use of the common brick types would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as they are durable and produce a standard brick wall appearance that is aesthetically appealing.
In re Claim 3, Hunsaker teaches a running bond configuration in Figure 1.
In re Claim 5, Hunsaker modified by Heidemann has been previously discussed. The epoxy (9) is an epoxy resin adhesive. (Paragraph 0018)
In re Claims 8 and 9, Hunsaker has been previously discussed but does not disclose that the backing layer is made from poly fiber or spun bond glass filaments. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the instant invention to use a backing layer with poly fiber or spun bond glass filaments, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Poly fibers are versatile and strong materials that are resistant to wear and tear. Spun bond glass filaments are durable due to high tensile and tear strength and are moisture resistant.
In re Claim 30, the modified Hunsaker has been previously discussed. Hunsaker teaches that the bricks (130) and the backing layer (110) that are rectangular. (Figure 1). Terwilliger teaches that the bricks (5) and the backing layer (1) that are rectangular. (Figures 1,2)
In re Claims 45, the modified Hunsaker has been previously discussed but does not disclose that the adhesive layer comprises a first strip of adhesive adhering the first row of thin bricks to the fiber-reinforced backing layer, and a second strip of adhesive adhering the second row of thin bricks to the fiber- reinforced backing layer. As was noted previously, the Hunsaker reference describes a continuous layer of adhesive (140) that all rows of bricks are installed on. Limiting that adhesive to discrete strips just under the brick rows is functionally equivalent to the continuous layer disclosed by the reference. Limiting the adhesive to just those strips would still attach those bricks to the underlying backing layer. The act of stalling the bricks would compress the adhesives. Compressing certain adhesives such as pastes, glues, and mortar causes them to spread out on their own and would produce similar coverage than just applying glue to the entirety of the backing layer. This would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as it limits the adhesive to the rows of bricks to be held in place and would have the advantage of simplifying the creation of the panel and producing a cost savings by using less adhesive.
Claim 42-44 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunsaker (U.S. 20100127531 in view of Heidemann (U.S. 20090255202) and Terwilliger (U.S. 4,079,554) and in further view of Attebery (U.S. 20080155938)
In re Claims 42-44, the modified Hunsaker has been previously discussed but does not disclose a first brick of a second row that overhangs at a second edge and a fiber reinforced backing layer edge extending beyond the second row of the thin bricks to define a vacant area where the overhang equals the vacant area.
Atterbury teaches a simulate stone wall panel with simulated stone/bricks (13-16) attached to a backing (11). Figures 1, 2, 10, and 11 show a first brick (16) of a second row that overhangs at a second edge. The backing (1) extends beyond the second row of the thin bricks to define a vacant area. The amount of the overhang appears equal to the vacant area so that when adjacent panels are installed, the overlapping stone/brick of that panel will be received in the vacant area, to give the appearance of one continuous row of bricks/stones separated by mortar joints.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify Hunsaker with the teachings of Atterbury. The overlapping bricks that fit into the vacant space of the adjoining panel help present the appearance of a continuous row of bricks while concealing the seam between the panels.
Claim 46-49 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunsaker (U.S. 20100127531 in view of Heidemann (U.S. 20090255202) and Terwilliger (U.S. 4,079,554) and in further view of Gaines (U.S. 3,067,545).
In re Claim 46, the modified Hunsaker has been previously discussed Hunsaker in Figure 1 teaches the second row of thin bricks (130) is aligned with the second edge of the backing layer (110). Hunsaker does not teach that the fiber-reinforced backing layer comprises a first portion and a second portion, the second portion angled approximately orthogonal to the first portion.
Gaines teaches panels with bricks/blocks (4, 4’, 11, 11’) in multiple roles and mounted to a grid backing (1,1’,10, 10’). Figures 1, 6, 9, and 10 teach bricks (4,4’) with in an L-shape on a first row. These L shapes have sections (5’,6’) with section (6’) being shorter than section (5’). Thin bricks on a second row are is aligned with the second edge of the fiber-reinforced backing layer. The backing layer has a first portion (2’) and a second portion (3’), the second portion angled approximately orthogonal to the first portion. (Figures 1-13)
It was obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hunsaker with the teachings of Gainers. This would allow the fiber reinforced backing sheet to cover a corner of a wall or building.
In re Claim 47, the modified Hunsaker has been previously discussed but does not specifically teach a first thin brick on a first portion of the backing layer and a second thin brick on a second portion of the backing layer. Figures 1, 6, 9, and 10 of Gaines teach bricks (4,4’) with in an L-shape on a first row. These L shapes have sections (5’,6’) with section (6’) being shorter than section (5’). (Figures 1-13)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use two brick sheets at the corner instead of one since this is a common and well know practice. Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Using two thin sheets would allow for greater flexibility in aligning at the corner, especially if the building is older and the wall framing of alignment is off square. This would result in a first thin brick on the first portion of the fiber-reinforced backing layer and a second thin brick on the second portion of the fiber-reinforced backing layer, the second thin brick comprising a length less than a length of the first thin brick.
In re Claim 48 and 49, the modified Hunsaker his been previously discussed. Gaines teaches the first edge of the backing layer extends beyond the second row of thin bricks defining a vacant area configured to receive a thin brick of another fiber enforced thin brick sheet. The combination further teaches second row of thin bricks comprises a first thin brick on the first portion of the fiber-reinforced backing layer and a second thin brick on the second portion of the fiber-reinforced backing layer, the first thin brick comprising a length less than a length of the second thin brick, the vacant area of the backing layer defined between the first thin brick and the first edge of the backing layer. Again, the combination disclosed that the backing area is a fiber-reinforced backing layer. (Figures 1-13, annotated Figure)
PNG
media_image1.png
374
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 50 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunsaker (U.S. 20100127531 in view of Heidemann (U.S. 20090255202) and in further view of Attebery (U.S. 20080155938).
In re Claims 50 and 51, Hunsaker teaches a first thin brick sheet comprising a first backing layer (110) and a first plurality of thin bricks (130) adhered to the first backing layer using a first adhesive layer (140), wherein the plurality of thin bricks are positioned in a staggered configuration.
Hunsaker does not teach a fiber-reinforced backing.
Heidemann teaches floor tile system where floor tiles/bricks (4) are adhered to a fiberglass backing (8) (fiber reinforced) by an adhesive (9). In the combination, this fiber-reinforced backing layer can be considered a fiber reinforced sheet. A fiberglass backing has fiberglass fibers. Figure 2 show that the fiberglass sheet is a grid. (Figures 1-3, Paragraphs 0005 and 0011))
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Hunsaker brick panel with the fiberglass backing layer taught by Heidemann. Fiberglass is light, flexible, durable, substantially non stretchable, and corrosion resistant. A fiberglass backing has fiberglass fibers.
While the modified Hunsaker describes a single panel, a second thin brick sheet comprising a second fiber-reinforced backing layer and a second plurality of thin bricks adhered to the second backing layer using a second adhesive layer would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device
involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8Multiple panels would allow for covering a larger wall surface.
Hunsaker does not teach at least one thin brick of the first plurality of bricks of the first thin brick sheet overhangs the first fiber-reinforced backing layer, the at least one thin brick overhanging the first fiber-reinforced backing layer configured to extend onto the second fiber-reinforced backing layer of the second thin brick sheet.
Atterbury teaches a simulate stone wall panel with simulated stone/bricks (13-16) attached to a backing (11). Figures 1, 2, 10, and 11 show a first brick (16) of a second row that overhangs the backing layer (11 at an edge. The backing (1) extends beyond the plurality of thin bricks to define a vacant area at an opposite edge. The amount of the overhang appears equal to the vacant area so that when adjacent panels are installed, the overlapping stone/brick of that panel will be received in the vacant area, to give the appearance of one continuous row of bricks/stones separated by mortar joints.
PNG
media_image2.png
252
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
290
428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
281
210
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify Hunsaker with the teachings of Atterbury. The overlapping bricks that fit into the vacant space of the adjoining panel help present the appearance of a continuous row of bricks while concealing the seam between the panels.
In the combination this will result in least one thin brick overhanging the first fiber-reinforced backing layer configured to extend onto the second fiber-reinforced backing layer of the second thin brick sheet. The second fiber-reinforced backing layer extends beyond at least one thin brick of the second plurality of thin bricks defining a vacant area of the second fiber-reinforced backing layer. At least one thin brick of the first fiber-reinforced backing layer overhanging the first fiber-reinforced backing layer and configured to extend into the vacant area of the second fiber-reinforced backing layer.
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