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 .
This non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s patent application number 19/100,949 filed on 2/4/2025
Currently, claims 1-14 are pending and examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/29/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” or “The present invention relates to” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Heading for “Description of specific embodiments of the invention” should be read – Detailed Description of the Invention --.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for fastening in claim 3; attachment means in claims 6, 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-14 are 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.
Re claim 1, lines 3, 10, 11; a citation “the other” does not have a proper antecedent basis. Correction is required. Claims 2-14 depending upon the rejected claim 1 are also rejected.
Re claim 1, lines 4, 6; a phrase “their” or “itself” renders the claim indefinite and confusing because it’s unclear whether “their” or “itself” referring to which structure? Correction is required. Claims 3, 13; having the same issue as mentioned are also rejected.
Re claim 4, line 3; a phrase “which” renders the claim indefinite and confusing because it’s unclear whether “which” referring to which structure? Clarification is required. Claims 13, 14; having the same issue as mentioned are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
As best understood, claim(s) 1-10, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US No. 11,448,405 to Warneke et al. (‘Warneke’).
Re claim 1: Warneke discloses an improved waterproofing panel comprising a plurality of sections 10 (Fig. 1) with a predominantly flat and polygonal geometry (Fig. 6), and said sections 10 being enabled to be arranged and fitted one after the other in an extension of their own flat geometry (Fig. 12); each section 10 is made up of a rigid and flat core 18 (Fig. 6) of the same polygonal geometry as the section itself and a waterproofing sheet 20 superimposed on the core 18 and joined to one another, wherein the sheet 20 is covering the core 18 and said sheet 20 has projections 60 that extend and protrude from the core 18 on two contiguous sides of the same core 18; so that in the arrangement of the sections 10 one after the other, the projections 60 of the sheet 20 of one section 10 are superimposed on the other adjacent section.
Re claim 2: wherein the sections 10 have a flat parallelogram geometry (Fig. 6).
Re claims 3, 4: comprising a structure by way of a frame 12, enabled by means of mechanical attachment means for fastening and supporting the sections 10 in their arrangement one after the other; wherein the attachment means comprise screw elements (col. 9, line 33) that pass through or are inserted into the sections 10 and which are attached to the structure 12.
Re claims 5, 6, 7, 8: wherein the attachment means further comprise waterproofing elements 64 having a conical geometry (Fig. 4) and enabled so that the screw elements (col. 9, line 33) are inserted inside at the same time as said same screw elements pass through or are inserted into the sections 10; wherein the waterproofing elements of the attachment means have discoidal perimeter lips (i.e. wherein near 82/84 points to, Fig. 7); wherein the waterproofing elements 64 have an elastomeric core (i.e. rubber, col. 5, lines 44-45) wherein the discoidal perimeter lips have attachment points (i.e. near wherein 22 points to, fig. 14) enabled to prevent movements prior to positioning the attachment means.
Re claims 9, 10: wherein the structure 12 has an arrangement adapted to the polygonal geometry of each of the sections 10; wherein the structure 12 has an arrangement by way of a grid and adapted to the parallelogram geometry of each of the sections (10.
Re claims 13, 14: which has at least one fold line (i.e. wherein near 32 points to, see Fig. 11)that runs transversely across its flat dimension; wherein the fold line is the result of linear weakening in the thickness of some of the sections 10, and which, as the sections 10 are arranged one after the other, make up the fold line.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US No. 11,448,405 to Warneke.
Re claims 11, 12: Warneke discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above but does not disclose expressly wherein the core is made of foam made of polymeric material; and wherein the sheet comprises a non-woven fabric. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose different materials for the core and sheet in order to optimize and meet the desirable constructional application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to CHI Q. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7AM-5PM or email: chi.nguyen@uspto.gov. If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197.
/CHI Q NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
PNG
media_image1.png
323
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights