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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on June 10, 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 21178820.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The submission entered July 14, 2025 in response to an Office Action mailed February 13, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 14 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 16-20 is/are newly presented.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112 as presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill would have avoided configurations in which an inlet port for introduction of water into a loose fill insulation is positioned at least 25 feet from a distal end of a loose fill insulation hose and that there would have been no reason based on Zhang to provide an inlet port for introduction of water into a loose fill insulation at a position that is at least 25 feet from a distal end of a loose fill insulation hose, since Zhang requires a relatively large amount of water that would be liable to clog the system when administered so far back from the insulation delivery end of the hose.
However, as previously set forth, Zhang et al. discloses [Col. 2:25-27] that “the water mist can be applied to the loose-fill insulation within the hopper of the blowing machine, at the blower, and/or within the blowing hose.” This disclosure would signal to one of ordinary skill that applying the water mist at various locations would yield predictable results, the wetting of the insulation in order to retain the insulation within a cavity. Zhang et al. further discloses the hose “can be from about 25 to about 600 feet, and more commonly about 50 to about 200 feet”; therefore, applying water mist at locations at least 25 feet from a distal end of the hose would be considered “within the blowing hose” as disclosed. Positioning the inlet port at least 25 feet from a distal end of the loose fill insulation would not have produced unexpected results. Further, applicant has not provided evidence of the critical nature of the claimed positioning. Applicant has argued that administering the water at the claimed distance “would be liable to clog the system”, but fails to provide evidence to support the assertion. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 2145(I). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In view of the above, there is no evidence to support the assertion that “the person of ordinary skill would have avoided configurations in which an inlet port for introduction of water into a loose fill insulation is positioned at least 25 feet from a distal end of a loose fill insulation hose” nor is there evidence to support the assertion that “there would have been no reason based on Zhang to provide an inlet port for introduction of water into a loose fill insulation at a position that is at least 25 feet from a distal end of a loose fill insulation hose, since Zhang requires a relatively large amount of water that would be liable to clog the system when administered so far back from the insulation delivery end of the hose.”
The previously presented rejection is maintained.
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 1-18, 20 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 “a hose” at line 7 and “the loose fill insulation hose” at line 12. The claim language is unclear if these recitations refer to the same element.
Claim 20 recites “a hose” at line 7 and “the loose fill insulation hose” at line 14. The claim language is unclear if these recitations refer to the same element.
Claims 2-18 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The language of claim 3, “wherein the inlet port is located in the loose fill insulation hose at least 25 feet from a distal end of the loose fill insulation hose” does not appear to limit the language of claim 1, “the inlet port being positioned at least 25 feet from a distal end of the loose fill insulation hose”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (USPN 10259001).
Regarding Claim(s) 1 and 20, Zhang et al. (USPN 10259001) teaches a loose fill insulation delivery system comprising: a loose fill insulation blowing machine comprising: a hopper (2) configured to receive loose fill insulation, and a blower (4) operable to convey loose fill insulation along a path (hose 6 and nozzle 5) toward an installation site (surface 12); and an outlet coupled to the blower (Figure 1 shows structure connecting the blower to air lock 9 and subsequently hose 6); a hose (hose 6) having a proximal end coupled to the outlet (through air lock 9) and a distal end (at nozzle 5), the hose being configured to receive loose fill insulation and conduct it along the path toward the installation site from the proximal end of the hose to the distal end of the hose (the insulation would travel along hose 6 to nozzle 5 and be sprayed as a suspension 8); and an inlet port (at spray tips 32 in nozzle 5) located along the path and configured to introduce a first additive (water or water mist) into loose fill insulation travelling along the path toward the installation site. Zhang et al. fails to teach the inlet port being positioned at least 25 feet from a distal end of the loose fill insulation hose. However, Zhang et al. discloses [Col. 2:25-27] the water mist may be applied to the insulation within the hopper, at the blower, and/or within the blowing hose. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, absent evidence of the criticality of the claimed location, the positioning of the inlet port would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art as engineering expedient. The position of the inlet port would still permit the water mist to contact the insulation particles as needed. Further, regarding claim 20, the claim recites three alternatives; therefore, the claim language requires only one of the alternatives. The alternative “the inlet port is located in the loose fill insulation hose at least 25 feet from a distal end of the loose fill insulation hose” is already addressed with respect to claim 1; therefore, claim 20 is treated together with claim 1.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Zhang et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the inlet port is located in the loose fill insulation blowing machine. However, Zhang et al. discloses [Col. 2:25-27] the water mist may be applied to the insulation within the hopper, at the blower, and/or within the blowing hose. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Therefore, the location of the inlet port would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art as engineering expedient. The location of the inlet port would still permit the water mist to contact the insulation particles as needed.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Zhang et al. fails to teach the inlet port is located in the loose fill insulation hose at least 25 feet from a distal end of the loose fill insulation hose. However, Zhang et al. discloses [Col. 2:25-27] the water mist may be applied to the insulation within the hopper, at the blower, and/or within the blowing hose. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, absent evidence of the criticality of the claimed location, the location of the inlet port would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art as engineering expedient. The location of the inlet port would still permit the water mist to contact the insulation particles as needed.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Zhang et al. teaches the loose fill insulation blowing machine includes a housing (Figure 1 shows a housing enclosing the hopper and blower) and an outlet conduit (hose 6) extending from the housing (Figure 1 shows a housing enclosing the hopper and blower). Zhang et al. fails to teach the inlet port is located in the outlet conduit. However, Zhang et al. discloses [Col. 2:25-27] the water mist may be applied to the insulation within the hopper, at the blower, and/or within the blowing hose. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Therefore, the location of the inlet port would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art as engineering expedient. The location of the inlet port would still permit the water mist to contact the insulation particles as needed.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Zhang et al. teaches a housing (Figure 1 shows a housing enclosing the hopper and blower).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Zhang et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the inlet port is inside the housing. However, Zhang et al. discloses [Col. 2:25-27] the water mist may be applied to the insulation within the hopper, at the blower, and/or within the blowing hose. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Therefore, the location of the inlet port would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art as engineering expedient. The location of the inlet port would still permit the water mist to contact the insulation particles as needed.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Zhang et al. teaches an air lock (9) and the inlet port is downstream of the air lock (the nozzle is downstream from the air lock).
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Zhang et al. teaches the inlet port is connected to at least one of a pump (pump 22) and a valve configured to meter the additive into the path of the loose fill insulation.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Zhang et al. teaches a method of delivering loose fill insulation to an installation site (surface 12) using the system according to claim 1, the method comprising: loading loose fill insulation into the hopper (Zhang et al. discloses a hopper is configured to house the loose-fill insulation, implying that the insulation is loaded into the hopper); operating the blower to convey the loose fill insulation along a path to the installation site [Col 8:33, “loose-fill insulation particles are blown through the hose”] ; and introducing a first additive to the loose fill insulation travelling along the path through the inlet port [Col. 8:38, “a water mist is applied to the loose-fill insulation particles”].
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Zhang et al. teaches the first additive includes a dust suppressant, moisture control agent, fire retardant, IR blocking agent, opacifier or pest control agent. Zhang et al. discloses a dust suppressant and a moisture control agent [Col. 4:19-36, “fluids may be applied to the fiberglass to control dust”; Col. 7:36-63, “surfactant may be added to the water to enhance the wettability of the loose-fill insulation particles”]. Further, the water sprayed by Zhang et al. would act as a fire retardant.
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Zhang et al. teaches the first additive is mixed with additional additives. Zhang et al. discloses a plurality of additives may be used [Col. 4:19-36; Col. 7:36-63].
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Zhang et al. teaches the loose fill insulation loaded into the hopper is free of the first additive. The water mist can be applied in the hose (as described above); therefore, the insulation would be free of the additive when loaded into the hopper.
Regarding Claim(s) 18, the loose fill insulation includes a fibrous material [Col. 3:20-30, “fibers”].
Claim(s) 8-10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Pentz et al. (USPN 6648022).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Zhang et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the loose fill insulation hose includes a first hose section, a second hose section, and a connection module coupling the first hose section and the second hose section. Pentz et al. teaches a loose fill insulation hose (Figure 5) having a first hose section (114a), a second hose section (114b) and a connection module (118) coupling the first hose section and the second hose section. The connection module comprises projection means (122) to condition the insulation [Col. 3:10-20; Col. 5:31-38]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the insulation hose of Zhang et al. to include a first hose section, a second hose section, and a connection module coupling the first hose section and the second hose section. The connection module would condition the insulation.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Zhang et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the connection module includes projections extending inward into the path of the loose fill insulation, the projections being configured to open the loose fill insulation. Pentz et al. teaches the connection module includes projections (122) extending inward into the path of the loose fill insulation, the projections being configured to open the loose fill insulation [Col. 3:10-20; Col. 5:31-38]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide projections in the connection module in order to condition the insulation and produce a uniform density of insulation material.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Zhang et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the inlet port is located in the connection module. Pentz et al. teaches the connection module as described above. However, Zhang et al. discloses [Col. 2:25-27] the water mist may be applied to the insulation within the hopper, at the blower, and/or within the blowing hose. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Therefore, the location of the inlet port would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art as engineering expedient. The location of the inlet port would still permit the water mist to contact the insulation particles as needed.
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Zhang et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach opening the loose fill insulation passing through the connection module using projections extending inward into the path along which the loose fill insulation is traveling. Pentz et al. teaches opening loose fill insulation passing through a connection module (118) using projections (122) extending inward into the path along which the loose fill insulation is traveling [Col. 3:10-20; Col. 5:31-38]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to open the loose fill insulation passing through the connection module using projections extending inward into the path along which the loose fill insulation is traveling in order to condition the insulation and produce a uniform density of insulation material.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Markham (USPN 4337902).
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Zhang et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the first additive includes an antistatic agent. Markham (USPN 4337902) teaches an insulation delivery system having an inlet port (where conduit 28 meets conduit 14), the inlet connected to a tank (20) having an antistatic agent [Col 2:43-45; Col. 5:8-12]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an antistatic agent to reduce the static charge on the insulation.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Schmidt et al. (US Pub 20050014896 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 19, Zhang et al. teaches a method of delivering loose fill insulation to an installation site, the method comprising: providing a loose fill insulation delivery system comprising: a loose fill insulation blowing machine comprising: a hopper (2) configured to receive loose fill insulation, a blower (4) operable to convey loose fill insulation along a path (hose 6 and nozzle 5) toward an installation site (surface 12); and an outlet coupled to the blower (Figure 1 shows structure connecting the blower to air lock 9 and subsequently hose 6); a hose (hose 6) having a proximal end coupled to the outlet (through air lock 9) and a distal end (at nozzle 5), the hose being configured to receive loose fill insulation and conduct it along the path toward the installation site from the proximal end of the hose to the distal end of the hose (the insulation would travel along hose 6 to nozzle 5 and be sprayed as a suspension 8); and an inlet port (at spray tips 32 in nozzle 5) located along the path and configured to introduce a first additive (water or water mist) into loose fill insulation travelling along the path toward the installation site; loading loose fill insulation into the hopper (Zhang et al. discloses a hopper is configured to house the loose-fill insulation, implying that the insulation is loaded into the hopper); operating the blower to convey the loose fill insulation along a path to the installation site [Col 8:33, “loose-fill insulation particles are blown through the hose”] ; and introducing a first additive to the loose fill insulation travelling along the path through the inlet port [Col. 8:38, “a water mist is applied to the loose-fill insulation particles”]. Zhang et al. fails to teach introducing a dry additive to the loose fill insulation travelling along the path through the inlet port. Schmidt et al. (US Pub 20050014896 A1) teaches delivering loose fill insulation through a hose (3) and teaches introducing a dry additive to the loose fill insulation traveling along the path through an inlet port [Para. 41, “first additive or part of the first additive that is added to the water can be added in dry form”; Para. 45, “optional internal nozzles”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to introduce a dry additive to the loose fill insulation in order to mix the additive with the insulation as taught by Schmidt et al.
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 WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights