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 .
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejection of the previous office action is obviated by the Applicant’s terminal disclaimer dated 7/23/25.
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 16 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 in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not include the new limitations of no intermediate support penetrating an interface of the rigid layer and the insulation layer.
Claims 17-39 are rejected for depending from claim 16.
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) 16-19, 21-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,240,691 to Holzkaemper et al in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2009/0011207 to Dubey as in the previous action.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Holzkaemper discloses a wall panel with a rigid layer (fig. 1: 3,) being cementitious and having glass fibers (column 4, lines 24-29) and having a first and second side, and a foam insulation (fig. 1: 2, column 4, lines 12-19) layer attached to and contiguous with the second side (back) of the rigid layer. However, the rigid layer of Holzkaemper is not disclosed as having magnesium oxide. Dubey discloses a cementitious material with magnesium oxide [0063]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holzkaemper by adding such a material in order to increase strength. Regarding the limitation of being configured for installation on a fixed structural building component, the wall panel of Holzkaemper may function in such a manner as it is attachable to a fixed structure. Also, regarding the limitation of the fibers configured to be the principal load carrying member, this is also possible as the fibers carry a load and without the fibers, the strength becomes diminished.
Regarding claims 17, 18, 27, 28 and 32, a veneer layer (fig. 1: 5, brick) is attached to the first side of the rigid layer and may inherently function as a water-resistant barrier. It should be noted that water may not pass through brick, making them water resisting.
Regarding claim 19, the rigid layer is poured (column 4, lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 21, the insulation of Holzkaemper is polyurethane foam (2, column 4, lines 1-6). Regarding the order of steps, the Applicant should note that the claims are drawn to the final product wall panel and not the method of making.
Regarding claims 29 and 38, the adhesive property of the rigid layer secures the rigid layer to the veneer (column 6, lines 1-20).
Regarding claims 22-24, Holzkaemper discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions of class. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions of class, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holzkaemper by using such a material as an obvious design choice where more or less insulation is required based upon the environment for which it is intended to function. Regarding the limitation of “poured”, this is a method step regarding the means of production. The Applicant should note that the claims are drawn to the final product, the final wall panel, and not the method
Regarding claim 25, the veneer layer has ridges (areas between bricks which form channels.
Regarding claims 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35 and 37, attachment to a building is disclosed (claim 1, Holzkaemper). Regarding the use of a plurality of panels, this is not explicitly disclosed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use multiple panels, since it has been held that a 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 8. The use of a plurality of panels would be useful on large buildings and allow for easy transport of the panels if there are a plurality as opposed to a single large panel. Regarding the limitation of a sealant between seams of panels, the examiner takes official notice that sealant such as caulking or other adhesives are well known in the art to join exterior components in order to add water resistance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add sealant between seams to prevent moisture entering the structure. Regarding the order of steps, the Applicant should note that the claims are drawn to the final product wall panel and not the method of making.
Regarding claim 36, securing the panel to a building structure is disclosed (Holzkaemper claim 1) but the specific means of attachment is not disclosed. The Examiner takes official notice that screws are well known in the art of construction and are commonly used to secure panels together, such as sheetrock as an example, and countersinking the screws is needed to set them flush. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify use screws in order to better secure the panel to a structure in a secure and economical manner.
Claim 39, as best understood, is rejected for reasons cited in the rejections of claims 16-18.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,240,691 to Holzkaemper et al in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2009/0011207 to Dubey further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,641,812 to Alderman as in the previous action.
Regarding claim 20, Holzkaemper in view of Dubey do not disclose the use of a phase change material. Alderman discloses such a material (fig. 1A, claim 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holzkaemper to use such a material in the insulation to better increase the insulative properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the rejection of claim 16 in that the Examiner’s rationale for modifying Holzkaemper to add magnesium oxide, disclosed by Dubey, fails to provide articulated reasoning because Dubey discloses only a trace amount of magnesium oxide. However, the addition of magnesium oxide aids in the strength of Holzkaemper even though there is a small amount. There is no definitive amount of such a material that is defined as adding strength or not adding strength. Even though a small amount is disclosed, allegedly, this meets the claimed structure. The reasoning is also reasonable in that both Holzkaemper and Dubey are similar in the art and the use of magnesium oxide is well known. There is no teaching of either references disclosing that the amount of magnesium oxide disclosed by Dubey is useless and would provide a negative effect. Regarding the Applicant’s arguments of “completely contiguous, the layers may be construed as contiguous as the support strips may be construed as part of one of the layers. Therefore, the layers are completely contiguous. The recently amended claim limitations are addressed in the action above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Basil Katcheves whose telephone number is (571)272-6846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm 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, 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 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.
/BASIL S KATCHEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights