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 § 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.
Claims 1-19 are 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 disclose the gradual incline of the first arch having a slope that is less than or equal to about 35 degrees and the gradual decline of the second slope that is less than or equal to about 50 degrees. It is noted that the specification on page 7, par 0038, discloses that the left side 260a may have more or less flat surfaces but does not disclose for any specific angles such as being about 35 degrees, and likewise, the specification on page 8, para 0040, discloses that the right side 260b that may have more or less flat surfaces such as being about 50 degrees. Since there is a broad range of angles that can be had by “more or less flat surfaces”, the specification does not appear to have the claimed subject matter as claimed.
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites for the slope “about 35 degrees” but it is unclear what range would constitute “about 35 degrees” given that the specification discloses not describe such range as claimed.
Claim 14 recites for the slope “about 35 degrees” and “about 50 degrees” but it is unclear what range would constitute such slope(s) given that the specification discloses not describe such range as claimed.
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) 1-5, 8, 13, 14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witkowski (US 2003/0198052) in view of Welch (US 2,194,841) and Brice et al (US 2015/0204538).
With respect to claim 1, Witkowski shows the structure claimed including an electromagnetic wave (e.g., light) reflector having a first side (left side of the reflector) and a second side (right side of the reflector) each shaped and sized to form a first arch and a second arch with a gradual incline and decline, respectively, and an elongated radiant tube (56) disposed beneath the electromagnetic wave reflector to reflect radiant energy emitted from the radiant tube/source wherein Witkowski further shows that an incline angle (left side shown with a panel 53a) and the decline angle (right side shown with a panel 53f) which are disposed about 40 degree from a horizontal plane (also, see Figure 4; para 0119). But, Witkowski does not show the first side having a first width and the second side of the reflector having a second width smaller than the first width forming asymmetrical arches that reflect radiant energy wherein the gradual decline of the second arch is steeper than the gradual incline of the first arch having a slope that is less than or equal to about 35 degrees as claimed.
Welch shows it is known to provide a reflector having a first side (4a or 5a or 6a) having a first width and a second side (4 or 5, or 6) having a second width smaller than the first width wherein the first side and second side are oriented on opposing ends that would provide different distribution of light (page 2, lines 35-58).
Brice shows it is known to provide a plurality of reflectors (28, 30) wherein the reflector each includes a first side (shown by an outside wall 32 in Figure 5A) having a first width and a second side (shown by an inside wall 34 in Figure 5A) having a second width smaller than the first width wherein the first side and the second side form an asymmetrical reflecting surface/shape wherein the outside wall is more horizonal than the outside wall (para 0046).
In view of Welch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Witkowski with the reflector having two asymmetric arches having a first side with a first width and a second side with a second width smaller than the first width that are capable of reflecting more radiant energy from the first side than the second side; and as Witkowski discloses that that the incline slope and the decline slope can be about 40 degrees with Brice teaching that the incline angle of the first arch can be more horizontal (para 0046) than the decline of the second arch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Witkowski with the decline slope that is less than or equal to about 35 degrees, lacking criticality (which would also be within about 40 degrees of Witkowski), and the incline slope that is less than or equal to about 50 degrees, lacking criticality (which would also be within about 40 degrees of Witkowski), that would predictably allow divergent reflected energy toward different intended areas as desired by the user as a matter of routine experimentations and optimization of the emitted radiant energy.
With respect to claim 2, Witkowski discloses that the reflector is comprised of aluminum (para 0122), and Brice also shows the aluminum reflector (para 0043).
With respect to claims 3, 5 and 8, Witkowski discloses the first side and second side that further comprises flat surfaces that are fixedly connected at increasing and decreasing angles including the angles that are within the recited angle of 25 to 180 degrees and forming a V shape as illustrated in Figures 1 and 4. While Witkowski does not explicitly show the V-shape having a width distance ranging between .8 to 1 inch, it would have been obvious to provide the V-shape having the claimed width or any other suitable width as a matter of routine experimentations, lacking criticality, that allows the radiant energy to be reflected from both the first side and the second side.
With respect to claim 4, Witkowski does not explicitly show that the flat surfaces 0.2 inches to 3.7 inches in width, but it would have been obvious to provide the flat surfaces in the claimed width or any other suitable width, lacking criticality, to predictably form the reflector as Witkowski shows the reflecting surfaces can be any suitable numbers and sizes as Witkowski shows using different panel sizes or widths to form the reflector as illustrated in Figures 1 and 4.
With respect to claim 13, Welch shows the first side (e.g., 4a) and the second side (4) each having different widths as illustrated in Figure 3 with a V-shape connection formed between the first side and the second side, and Brice also discloses for the first side and second side each having different width dimensions as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 wherein Brice also discloses a centrally formed V-shape (shown by M-shape of the reflector) connecting the first side and the second side and reflecting radiant energy from the elongated radiant tube from the top surface of the elongated tube to the flat surfaces of the first side and the second side.
With respect to claim 14, Witkowski shows the method claimed including an electromagnetic wave (e.g., light) reflector having a first side (left side of the reflector) and a second side (right side of the reflector) each shaped and sized to form a first arch and a second arch with a gradual incline and decline, respectively, and an elongated radiant tube (56) disposed beneath the electromagnetic wave reflector to reflect radiant energy emitted from the radiant tube/source Witkowski further shows that an incline angle (left side shown with a panel 53a) and the decline angle (right side shown with a panel 53f) which are disposed about 40 degree from a horizontal plane (also, see Figure 4; para 0119). But, Witkowski does not show the electromagnetic wave reflector being asymmetrical with a first side having a first width and the second side of the reflector having a second width smaller than the first width forming the asymmetrical arches in an offset position wherein the first side having a first slope of a gradual incline of less than or equal to about 35 degrees and the second side having a second slope of a gradual decline of less than or equal to about 50 degrees as claimed.
Welch shows it is known to provide a reflector installed in an offset position having a first side (4a or 5a or 6a) having a first width and a second side (4 or 5, or 6) having a second width smaller than the first width wherein the first side and second side are oriented on opposing ends that would provide different distribution of light (page 2, lines 35-58).
Brice shows it is known to provide a plurality of reflectors (28, 30) wherein the reflector each includes a first side (shown by an outside wall 32 in Figure 5A) having a first width and a second side (shown by an inside wall 34 in Figure 5A) having a second width smaller than the first width wherein the first side and the second side form an asymmetrical reflecting surface/shape wherein the outside wall is more horizonal than the outside wall (para 0046).
In view of Welch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Witkowski with the reflector installed in an offset position having two asymmetric arches having a first side with a first width and a second side with a second width smaller than the first width that are capable of reflecting the radiant energy in different directions and distances which would predictably allow the radiant energy to be directed and reflected toward an desired direction or location having different distribution of light/radiation as desired by the user; and in view of Brice that teaches for the incline angle of the first arch that can be more horizontal (para 0046) than the decline of the second arch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Witkowski with the decline slope that is less than or equal to about 35 degrees, lacking criticality (which would also be within about 40 degrees of Witkowski), and the incline slope that is less than or equal to about 50 degrees, lacking criticality (which would also be within about 40 degrees of Witkowski), that would predictably further allow divergent reflected energy toward different intended areas as desired by the user as a matter of routine experimentations and optimization of the emitted radiant energy.
With respect to claims 17-19, Witkowski shows the first side and the second side having flat surfaces that are fixedly connected at increasing and decreasing angles as well as Brice showing the first side and the second side with increasing and decreasing angles wherein Witkowski as well as Welch and Brice show a V-shaped connection between the first side and the second side wherein radiant energy is reflected from the top surface of the elongated tube to the flat surfaces of the first side and the second side, and a ground/floor of an enclosure can be predictably heated to a desired temperature or any other suitable temperature based on the different distribution of light/radiation due to the reflecting sides having different widths as performed in its normal operation of the radiant tube when used in an enclosure of building as disclosed in Brice.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witkowski in view of Welch and Brice as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 13, 14 and 17-19 above, and further in view of Edwards, Jr (US 6,092,913).
Witkowski in view of Welch and Brice shows the structure and method claimed except for a height of the asymmetrical arches is being less than three inches.
Edwards shows it is known to provide a fixture having a radiant apparatus having a reflector that is provided in a central well (60) of a housing (20) which has a depth of 27/8 inches (3.375 inches). While Edwards does not explicitly disclose for the height to be less than 3 inches, Edward nevertheless discloses for having the fixture that has a less-bulky profile enabling the reflector to mounted on or within ceiling having lower clearances (column 1, lines 51-60).
In view of Edwards, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Witkowski, as modified by Welch and Brice, with a heigh distance from the highest point to the lowest point of the asymmetrical arches of the reflector that is less than three inches or any other suitable ranges having less bulky profile, as a matter of routine experimentations lacking criticality, to enable the heating apparatus to be adequately and conveniently mounted on or within a ceiling having lower clearances.
Claim(s) 9-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witkowski in view of Welch and Brice as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 13, 14 and 17-19 above, and further in view of Tomlinson et al (US 9,303,880).
Witkowski in view of Welch and Brice shows the structure and method claimed except for a hanger as claimed.
Tomlinson shows it is known to provide a hanger (24) having a body that holds a reflector (90) and a base that holds an elongated radiant tube (60) as shown in Figures 2-4.
In view of Tomlinson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Witkowski, as modified by Welch and Brice, with a hanger that holds the electromagnetic wave reflector and the elongated radiant tube that can be conveniently mounted on to a ceiling and maintain a desired or proper clearance from the ceiling.
With respect to claim 12, Tomlinson shows a number of hangers used for mounting the heating apparatus, and it would have been obvious to dispose the hangers between three and twelve feet apart or any suitable distance to securely and adequately support and mount the heating apparatus as desired by the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
Claim 20 is allowed over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Applicant argues that the drawing figures depict initial/gradual incline slope of 35º that provides written support of the incline slope as claimed. It is noted that there is no support in the specification that the drawing are illustrated in scale that supports the Applicant’s argument. Furthermore, the specification discloses for a broad range of slopes that can be provided with “more or less flat surfaces (para 0038 and para 004) which does not specify any particular slope. Thus, the Applicant’s arguments are not deemed persuasive.
With respect to the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant argues that the clarity of the slopes is depicted in the drawing figures, but this argument is not deemed persuasive as there is no support in the specification that the drawing are illustrated in scale that supports the particular slope wherein the specification also discloses for a broad range of slopes that can be provided with “more or less flat surfaces (para 0038 and para 004) which does not specify any particular slope.
With respect to the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues the combination fails to teach the amended limitation as claimed. It is noted that Witkowski discloses that the incline or decline slope can be about 40 degrees (para 0019) wherein as the claimed scope recites for “about 35 degrees” such slope can be considered within “about 40 degrees” as there is no support from the Applicant’s specification regarding the particularity and criticality of “about 35 degrees”. Furthermore, it is noted the Brice discloses that the outer wall (32) can be more “horizontal” than the inside wall (34) wherein such teaching would allow one of ordinary skill to modify the slopes of Witkowski as claimed, as a matter of routine experimentations and optimizations, to provide divergent energy distribution as stated in the ground of rejection.
With respect to Edwards, Applicant argues that Edwards sets a functional lower boundary that teaches away the claimed range of less than three inches. Although Edwards discloses for the depth (i.e., height) of the reflector/well 60 to be 27/8 inches, such depth is described as “approximately” value and not an exact value. Furthermore, given the desire for providing the fixture with a less bulky profile in Edwards (column 1, lines 51-60), one of ordinary skill would be motivated to provide the reflector having a less bulky profile/height that can be less than 3 inches as a matter of routine experimentations that enables mounting on or within ceiling having lower clearances as desired in Edwards.
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 SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights