DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, both the operational and nonoperational modes of the spring tale must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Additionally, the “the length of each of said first tails is such that, upon actuation, said first tails will move to a second operative position wherein they shall extend from one side of said passage to the other side of said of said passage or thereabouts” is not shown. Also not shown are” the projected paths of said first tails will crisscross one another” and the “upon actuation, said first tails will move to a second operative position wherein they shall extend from one side of said passage to the other side of said passage or thereabouts”. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2 , 7, 11, and 12 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). An appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 7, the language specifies a length or an operative length. The difference between the two lengths is not clear in the claim language, rendering the scope indefinite. An appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 12, the language specifies that “the first tails will move to a second operative position wherein they shall extend from one side of said passage to the other side of said of said passage or thereabouts.” What is meant by thereabouts? This lack of clarity renders the scope of the claim indefinite. An appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Truss (AU 2018217245).
In re Claim 2, Truss teaches a fire collar with a body (11) having an open-ended passage, such as a bore, that includes a first opening (18) and an opposing second opening (13) through which the services in use shall extend, said passage having an internal face (20); mounting means (21,22), associated with said body for mounting said body to the wall in the vicinity of the penetration; a layer or a segment of intumescent material (43) located within said passage such that it at least overlies said internal face; a layer of a protective material (44) that extends about said segment of intumescent material and interposed between said intumescent material and said internal face; retaining means (Page 5, Paragraph 1) for retaining said intumescent material in close proximity to said internal face, and actuation means, including a plurality of torsion springs (34,324) operatively connected to said body, each of said torsion springs having a spring body (coils)and two tails(38,39,138,139,238,239), including an elongate first tail(39,139,239) having a tip that is spaced away from/remote from said spring body, and wherein whereby said first tail of each spring in use is capable of moving from a non- operating mode proximal to the layer of intumescent material (Figure 2,4,7,8,10) to an operating mode in which it extends into said passage (Figure 3,5,9, 11). The springs will exert a force on the spring tips. Since the reference meets the positively claimed characteristic of the invention, it will be capable of the intended use of the tips will being able to push apart at least an outer layer of services before becoming imbedded deeper within the cluster.
In re Claim 4, Truss teaches that the spring body (coil) is adjacent to the first opening (18) at the tip of the tails are adjacent to the second opening(1). The examiner notes that the term adjacent is broad enough that all parts of the collar could be said to be adjacent each other. (Figures 1-11)
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truss (AU 2018217245).
In re Claim 7, Truss has been previously discussed but does not teach the length, or operative length of said first tail is greater than the internal diameter of said bore. However, changes in size, shape, and proportion which have been held to involve only routine skill in the art and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the invention. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137; In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402. A tail length that is longer than the diameter of the opening will assure engagement between the torsion spring and a significant portion of the intumescent material.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truss (AU 2018217245) in view of Van Walraven (U.S. 20110210222)
In re Claims 8-10, Truss has been previously discussed but does not teach that the body is elongate and flexible with connecting means to connect opposing end portions together
Van Walraven teaches a firestop collar (1) with a body that is elongate and flexible with connecting means (8,9) to connect opposing end portions together. The flexible body is composed of two or more integral segments (2) connected side by side by a common fold line(3). (Figures 1-10)
It would be obvious to modify Truss with the teaching of Van Walraven. The flexible body allow flexibility in configuring the collar on a variety of sizes and shapes of utilities passing through a wall.
In re Claim 11, Truss teaches fire collar with a cylindrical body having an open-ended bore that includes a first opening (18) and an opposing second opening (13) and wherein said cylindrically shaped body includes a broad internal face (20) and an opposing external face (12); mounting means (21,22), associated with said body for mounting said cylindrically shaped body to the wall in the vicinity of the penetration such that the cluster of wires extend through said open-ended bore; a layer of a segment of intumescent material (43) located within said open-ended bore that at least overlies a substantial portion of said internal face; a layer of a protective material (44) that extends about said segment of intumescent material and interposed between said intumescent material and said internal face; retaining means (Page 5, Paragraph 1) for retaining said intumescent material in close proximity to said internal face; and actuation means, including a plurality of torsion springs (34,324) operatively connected to said body, each of said torsion springs having a spring body (coils)and two tails(38,39,138,139,238,239), including an elongate first tail(39,139,239) having a tip that is spaced remote from said spring body, and wherein said first tail of each spring in use is capable of moving from a non- operating mode proximal to the layer of intumescent material (Figure 2,4,7,8,10) to an operating mode in which it extends into said passage (Figure 3,5,9, 11). The springs will exert a force on the spring tips. Since the reference meets the positively claimed characteristic of the invention, it will be capable of the intended use of the tips will being able to push apart at least an outer layer of services before becoming imbedded deeper within the cluster.
Truss does not teach that the body consists of a long, flat, strip of a flexible material having a first end portion and an opposing second end portion; connection means associated with said first and second end portions for connecting said end portions together
Van Walraven teaches a firestop collar (1) with a body that is elongate and flexible with connecting means (8,9) to connect opposing end portions together. The flexible body is composed of two or more integral segments (2) connected side by side by a common fold line(3). (Figures 1-10)
It would be obvious to modify Truss with the teaching of Van Walraven. The flexible body allow flexibility in configuring the collar on a variety of sizes and shapes of utilities passing through a wall.
In re Claims 12 and 19, the modified Truss has been previously discussed. The term “Thereabouts” can be defined to mean, near that place. Therefore, Figures 3, 5, 9, and 11 show first tail (39,239) upon actuation that extend from side of the passage to a position that is “near” the other side. Should the applicant dispute this, the examiner would point out that changes in size, shape, and proportion which have been held to involve only routine skill in the art and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the invention. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137; In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402. A tail length in the operative position that extends from one side of the passage to the other side will assure engagement between the torsion spring and a significant portion of the intumescent material.
In re Claims 14-15 and 20-21, the modified Truss has been previously discussed but does not disclose that the spring force is 120N-220N or approximately 180N. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have springs with spring forces in these size ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values or ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Springs with this size of force will be capable of engaging and acting with sufficient force upon the intumescent material so that is seals the wall opening against fire.
In re Claim 16, Truss teaches that the first tail (39,139,239) is elongate with a spring body (coil) is adjacent to the first opening (18) and the tip/end of the first tail is spaced away from/remote from the spring body but is adjacent to the second opening (13). The examiner notes that the term adjacent is broad enough that all parts of the collar could be said to be adjacent each other. (Figures 1-11)
In re Claims 17 and 18, the modified Truss has been previously discussed. The examiner first notes that as the drawing are not provided, the projected paths are not specifically described and are subject to interpretation. The examiner notes that Figures 3, 5, 9, and 11 show first tail (39,239) that extend at an angle into the bore. Projecting forward along these tails would result in the tails crisscrossing one another as is shown in the example of the annotated Figure 5 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
414
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, should the applicant dispute, the having the actual first tails cross, rather than a projection would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date. Changes in size, shape, and proportion which have been held to involve only routine skill in the art and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the invention. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137; In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402. Extending the first tail length so that it intersects and crisscross with the path of another first tail will assure engagement between the torsion spring and a significant portion of the intumescent material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PRO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at (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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633