DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges Claims 1 and 4-5 have been amended and Claims 6-20 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections of Claims 1-5 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments with respect to the Prior Art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
The first argument is that Vap, US Patent # 11,945,062 is not prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(2). The Examiner disagrees because the Application was published on 18 June 2020, more than a year prior to the effective filing date of this Application of 6 November 2024.
In the next argument, the Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s interpretation that a layout line is the claimed leveling system and setting the panels is the claimed attachment system. However, the Examiner finds these limitations to be broad and lacking structure. In claim 1, all the is required is “installing a leveling and attachment system on the EIPS panel; and attaching and leveling the EIFS panel on the building”. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner reasons that his interpretation of a leveling system being a layout line and an attachment system being setting the panels is a reasonable interpretation since the claim lacks any structure for what this system is. The Applicant argues that Vap does not disclose a leveling and attachment system that is installed on the EIFS panel during off-site assembly. However, the EIFS panels are prefabricated off site (Column 3, Lines 14-15). Thus any fabrication of the panels is done off site.
The next argument is towards the 103 rejection. However, the allegation is merely that claims 3-5 depend from 1 and are therefore allowable for the same reasons. However, as the Examiner has shown, the arguments towards claim 1 have not been found persuasive or the claim to be allowable.
The next argument is that Lippert [the secondary reference] fails to cure the deficiencies. However, as the Examiner has shown, Vap does not have any deficiencies towards claim 1.
The final argument is that Lippert does not teach or suggest a picking eye. However, as claims 4 and 5 have been amended, the Examiner sets forth a new ground(s) of rejection [see rejection below].
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent # 11,945,062 to Vap.
Regarding claim 1, Vap teaches a method of manufacturing (Column 1, Lines 7-8) an exterior insulated finish systems (EIFS) panel (Column 2, Line 62) and installing (Column 5, Lines 45-52) the EIFS panel on a building (Column 3, Line 25), the method comprising: assembling the EIFS panel [prefabricating (Column 3, Line 15)] at a location [off site (Column 3, Line 15)] that is different than a site of the building [on site (Column 1, Line 27)], wherein assembling the EIFS panel comprises: assembling a frame (Column 3, Line 4) of the EIFS panel; attaching a sheathing [gypsum board (Column 3, Line 4)] onto the frame; attaching insulation (Column 3, Lines 5-6) to the sheathing; rasping the insulation (Column 4, Lines 12-14); and installing a leveling [layout line (Column 5, Line 47)] and attachment [setting of panels (Column 5, Line 42)] system on the EIFS panel; and attaching [setting of panels (Column 5, Line 42)] and leveling [visually align (Column 5, Lines 47-49)] the EIFS panel on the building.
Regarding claim 2, Vap teaches wherein attaching [setting of panels (Column 5, Line 42)] and leveling [visually align (Column 5, Lines 47-49)] the EIFS panel on the building comprises leveling the EIFS panel on the building relative to other EIFS panels on the building adjacent to the EIFS panel (Column 5, Lines 38-52).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 11,945,062 to Vap in view of US Patent # 8,875,445 to Lippert.
Regarding claim 3, Vap teaches a method with a leveling and attachment system but does not teach it includes at least one bracket including a nut for receiving a fastener. However, Lippert teaches in Figures 4C, 5D and 5E, a leveling and attachment system that includes at least one bracket (88) including a nut (Column 7, Line 2) positioned in the bracket (88) for receiving a fastener (12A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Vap with Lippert and have a reasonable expectation of success because Lippert teaches the fastener holds down the wall assembly (Column 10, Lines 49-50).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 11,945,062 to Vap in view of US Patent # 12,668,982 to Walters.
Regarding claim 3, Vap teaches a method with a leveling and attachment system but does not teach it includes at least one bracket including a nut for receiving a fastener or picking eye. However, Walters teaches in Figure 4, at least one bracket (6) including a nut (7) positioned in the bracket (6) for receiving a fastener (15) or a picking eye (8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Vap with Walters and have a reasonable expectation of success because Walters teaches the eye provides an attachment point for a cable that can be used for safely moving a system (Column 4, Lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 4, Vap in view of Walters teach a method. Furthermore, Walters teaches in Figure 1A, that the at least one bracket (6) is attached to the top of the panel (100) and Figure 4 shows inserting the picking eye (8) into the nut (7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Vap with Walters and have a reasonable expectation of success because Walters teaches the eye provides an attachment point for a cable that can be used for safely moving a system (Column 4, Lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 5, Vap in view of Walters teach a method. Furthermore, Walters teaches in Figure 1C, that the at least one bracket (6) is attached to the bottom of the panel (200) and Figure 4 shows inserting the picking eye (8) into the nut (7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Vap with Walters and have a reasonable expectation of success because Walters teaches the eye provides an attachment point for a cable that can be used for safely moving a system (Column 4, Lines 41-43).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm 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 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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights