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 § 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 1-5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blackburn et al. US 2021/0040738 A1 (hereinafter ‘Blackburn’).
In regard to claims 1 and 2, Blackburn teaches a wall, comprising:
a 3D wire mesh panel having a core (24) with a 3D wire mesh matrix (16) extending through and out of the core (see fig. 1) and having a front side (18), a rear side (20), a top side, a bottom side, left and right sides (See fig. 2); and
structural material (concrete 14) disposed about the panel covering the front, rear, top, bottom, left and right sides (see figs. 35-36).
In regard to claim 3, Blackburn teaches the claimed invention including an opening extending through the front and rear sides and the concrete over the front and rear sides defines a window or a door (see fig. 36, and [0154]).
In regard to claim 4, Blackburn teaches the claimed invention which is freestanding and transportable (see [0018] disclosing the panel is lift into a vertical position, hence, freestanding under broadest reasonable interpretation, and [0185] for transportable).
In regard to claims 5 and 8, Blackburn teaches the claimed invention including a form positioned about the top, bottom, right, left sides and in contact with the concrete covering the top, bottom, right, and left sides, the form defining an outer border of the wall (see figs. 32-36).
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackburn.
In regard to claim 6, Blackburn teaches the claimed invention having a thickness of 8” (see [0159]), but it’s silent regarding a length and a width. Blackburn does teach that the length and width of the wall “may be varied from embodiment to embodiment” (see [0153]) thus leaving up to the person of ordinary skill in the art to select suitable workable dimensions for the wall of Blackburn. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at dimensions of about 4’x20’ and a weight within the claimed range (less than 4,600 Lbs.) as a matter of routine experimentation and so as to create a wall that is easy to install and transport. See MPEP 2144.05. (In the instant case, size and weight differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such distance is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Further, it would have been obvious to provide a wall for supporting loads of more than 50,000 lbs. so as to provide proper shear and momentum capacity which allows the wall to be used in a variety of scenarios.
In regard to claim 7, Blackburn teaches the claimed invention including eyes extending from the front side for lifting the wall (see [0141] “lifting attachment point embedded in the precast construction panel to lift the precast construction panel”). Although the lifting point is not explicitly disclosed as eyes extending from the front side, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the eyes on the front side so that they are visible and readily available and thus expedite the lifting.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackburn in view of Meilleur US 2017/0107715 A1 (hereinafter ‘Meilleur’).
In regard to claim 9, Blackburn does not explicitly teach the form includes a front and rear foam sheets disposed respectively adjacent to the front and real sides.
Meilleur teaches a form for constructing a concrete wall, the form comprising front and rear foam sheet (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide front and rear foam sheets in the form of Blackburn so as to improve the insulating ability of the wall (see Meilleur [0029]).
In regard to claim 10, the combination of Blackburn/Meilleur teaches the claimed invention including a right and a left end board adjacent to and in spaced relationship with the right side and the left side, respectively (See figs. 33 and 34).
In regard to claim 11, the combination of Blackburn/Meilleur teaches the claimed invention including bracing about the form to hold the form in place (See figs. 33 and 34 exterior supports for the form, note that they are placed about the form).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a wall as including a core, a 3D wire mesh panel and concrete, including a form positioned about the panel and concrete such that the form includes front and read foam sheets and side boards as recited within the context of claim 11 and further comprising an enclosure positioned around and in spaced relationship with the boards and foam sheets, and having concrete disposed between the enclosure and the boards and foam sheets.
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 PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 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 E 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
