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 .
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) 1-5, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US Patent No 10,060,126) in view of Dahlin (US PGPub No 2017/0342709).
Referring to claim 1: Collins teaches a bottom cap for a foam building panel, the bottom cap comprising: an elongate rear wall (item 22b); an elongate front wall (item 26) spaced from and extending parallel to the elongate rear wall; a bottom wall (item 28) extending at an obtuse inside angle from the elongate rear wall to the elongate front wall thereby to form an open-topped channel and a set of spaced apertures (item 38) extending from inside the open-topped channel through a region of the bottom wall that is proximal to the elongate front wall. Collins does not teach a first set of spaced pedestals extending into the open-topped channel from a region of the bottom wall that is proximal to the elongate rear wall. However, Dahlin teaches a first set of spaced pedestals (item 27) extending into the open-topped channel from a region of the bottom wall that is proximal to the elongate rear wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Collins with the pedestals taught by Dahlin in order to keep the end of a foam insulation panel from sitting in water before it drains from one of the apertures in the bottom wall.
Referring to claims 2-5: Collins and Dahlin teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein the obtuse inside angle is from about 95 degrees to about 105 degrees, wherein the obtuse inside angle is from about 97 degrees to about 102 degrees, the obtuse inside angle is 97 degrees, or the obtuse inside angle is 102 degrees. However, Collins shows an angle larger than 90 degrees (figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose any specific angle larger than 90 degrees but not significantly larger in order to encourage water to exit the bottom wall away from the rear wall thereby shedding water away from a surface of the building. Too large of an angle would prevent the water from exiting further from the building or would require a larger gap under a building panel to travel the distance away from the building wall.
Referring to claim 7: Collins and Dahlin teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. They do not teach wherein the elongate front wall is spaced from the elongate rear wall by about 4 inches. However, Collins teaches a width of between 1 inches to 3 inches but specifically discloses other dimensions are possible (col 5, lines 22-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a specific width that would sufficiently support a specific building panel.
Referring to claim 8: Collins and Dahlin teach all the limitations of claim 7 as noted above. Additionally, Collins teaches wherein the elongate rear wall extends to about 1 inch from the bottom wall (col 5, lines 8-10).
Referring to claims 9 and 10: Collins and Dahlin teach all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein the elongate front wall extends to about 1.5 inches or 1.85 inches from the bottom wall. However, Collins teaches a specific length of 5/8 inch (col 5, lines 8-12). It would have been obvious matter of design choice to extend the height of the elongate front wall, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Having a taller elongate front wall would secure a building panel further against outward pressure.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins in view of Dahlin, and Randle et al. (US Patent No 11,492,804) (“Randle”).
Referring to claim 6: Collins and Dahlin teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. They do not teach a second set of spaced pedestals extending into the open-topped channel from a region of the bottom wall that is proximal to the elongate front wall, wherein each of the spaced pedestals in the second set extends to a same height with respect to the elongate rear wall as the spaced pedestals in the first set. However, Randle teaches a second set of spaced pedestals (item 612) extending into the open-topped channel from a region of the bottom wall that is proximal to the elongate front wall, wherein each of the spaced pedestals in the second set extends to a same height with respect to the elongate rear wall as the spaced pedestals in the first set.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to create the device taught by Collins and Dahlin with the second set of pedestals taught by Randle in order to support a building panel evenly along two edges.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins in view of Randle.
Referring to claim 11: Collins teaches a bottom cap for a foam building panel, the bottom cap comprising: an elongate rear wall *item 22b); an elongate front wall (item 26) spaced from and extending parallel to the elongate rear wall; a bottom wall (item 28) extending at an obtuse inside angle from the elongate rear wall to the elongate front wall thereby to form an open-topped channel; and a set of spaced apertures (item 38) extending from inside the open-topped channel through a region of the bottom wall that is proximal to the elongate front wall. Collins does not teach a set of spaced ledges extending into the open-topped channel from the elongate rear wall. However, Randle teaches a set of spaced ledges (item 610) extending into the open-topped channel from the elongate rear wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Collins with the ledges taught by Randle in order to keep the end of a foam insulation panel from sitting in water before it drains from one of the apertures in the bottom wall.
Referring to claims 12-15: Collins and Randle teach all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein the obtuse inside angle is from about 95 degrees to about 105 degrees, wherein the obtuse inside angle is from about 97 degrees to about 102 degrees, the obtuse inside angle is 97 degrees, or the obtuse inside angle is 102 degrees. However, Collins shows an angle larger than 90 degrees (figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose any specific angle larger than 90 degrees but not significantly larger in order to encourage water to exit the bottom wall away from the rear wall thereby shedding water away from a surface of the building. Too large of an angle would prevent the water from exiting further from the building or would require a larger gap under a building panel to travel the distance away from the building wall.
Referring to claim 16: Collins and Randle teach all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Additionally, Randle teaches a set of spaced pedestals (item 612) extending into the open-topped channel from a region of the bottom wall that is proximal to the elongate front wall, wherein each of the spaced pedestals in the set of spaced pedestals extends to a same height with respect to the elongate rear wall as the spaced ledges (figure 9). It would have been obvious to have the second set of pedestals taught by Randle in order to support a building panel evenly along two edges.
Referring to claim 17: Collins and Randle teach all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. They do not teach wherein the elongate front wall is spaced from the elongate rear wall by about 4 inches. However, Collins teaches a width of between 1 inches to 3 inches but specifically discloses other dimensions are possible (col 5, lines 22-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a specific width that would sufficiently support a specific building panel.
Referring to claim 18: Collins and Randle teach all the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Additionally, Collins teaches wherein the elongate rear wall extends to about 1 inch from the bottom wall (col 5, lines 8-10).
Referring to claims 19 and 20: Collins and Randle teach all the limitations of claim 18 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein the elongate front wall extends to about 1.5 inches or 1.85 inches from the bottom wall. However, Collins teaches a specific length of 5/8 inch (col 5, lines 8-12). It would have been obvious matter of design choice to extend the height of the elongate front wall, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Having a taller elongate front wall would secure a building panel further against outward pressure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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 Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights