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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1,2,3,6,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ducting.com’s product “Poly Fabric Flex - 2 ply”, hereafter known as Polyflex, in view of Thermaflex’s product “S-TL Flexible Air Duct”, hereafter known as Thermaflex.
Regarding claim 1, Polyflex discloses a flexible uninsulated duct (fig A, duct is uninsulated, Polyflex) a flexible uninsulated duct that meets Underwriter Laboratories (UL) 181 Class 1 duct standard (not disclosed) comprising:
a polymer core having a helical wire as a part thereof, the polymer core forming an inner space for conditioned air flow (fig A, paragraph 1 of product description, duct core is a steel wire helix laminated between two ply’s of polyester fabric, with an inner channel for air to flow, Polyflex), and having an outer surface (fig A, duct has an outer surface, Polyflex);
and a fire resistant barrier layer surrounding the outer surface of the polymer core (not disclosed), a first surface of the fire resistant barrier layer facing the outer surface of the polymer core (not disclosed), and an outer surface of the fire resistant barrier layer exposed to form an outer surface of the uninsulated duct (not disclosed), the fire resistant barrier layer providing flame spreading and smoke development resistance such that the flexible uninsulated duct meets the UL 181 Class 1 duct standard (not disclosed).
Polyflex does not disclose a fire resistant layer outside of the polymer core. However, Thermaflex teaches:
a fire resistant layer outside of a core (page 2, product image, fire resistant fiberglass outer layer is outside of the core coating the wire, Thermaflex),
a first surface of the fire resistant barrier layer facing the outer surface of the core (page 2, product image, a first surface of the fiberglass layer faces the outer surface of the wire coating, Thermaflex),
and an outer surface of the fire resistant barrier layer exposed to form an outer surface of the uninsulated duct (page 2, product image, outer surface of fiberglass fire resistant barrier layer is exposed to form an outer surface of the duct, Thermaflex),
the fire resistant barrier layer providing flame spreading and smoke development resistance such that the flexible uninsulated duct meets the UL 181 Class 1 duct standard (page 1, bullet point 5, fire resistant fiberglass barrier meets UL 181 Class 1 duct standard, Thermaflex).
Thermaflex describes a heat resistant metal wire duct, a field closely related to Polyflex and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Thermaflex into Polyflex and add a layer of the fiberglass layer of Thermaflex around the exterior of the duct of Polyflex. The added heat resistance from the fiberglass layer of Thermaflex will allow the duct of Polyflex to be used in environments where insulated duct is not required or cannot be used, e.g., clean room applications (page 3, product description, Thermaflex).
Regarding claim 2, Polyflex in view of Thermaflex discloses the flexible uninsulated duct of claim 1, wherein the polymer core further comprises a pair of PET layers with a helical wire positioned therebetween (fig A and product description, the polymer core is two plies of polyester fabric with steel wire helix in between, Polyflex).
Regarding claim 3, Polyflex in view of Thermaflex discloses the flexible uninsulated duct of claim 1, wherein a length of the uninsulated duct is more than 14 feet in length (the duct of Polyflex as available in a length of 25 ft)
Regarding claim 6, Polyflex in view of Thermaflex discloses the flexible uninsulated duct of claim 1, wherein the fire resistant barrier layer is a woven or nonwoven fabric material containing fiberglass (page 1, product image, the fire resistant layer is coated woven fiberglass, Thermaflex).
Regarding claim 12, Polyflex in view of Thermaflex discloses the flexible uninsulated duct of claim 1, wherein the fire resistant barrier layer surrounds the outer surface of the polymer core along an entire length of the flexible uninsulated duct (page 2, product image, fire resistant fiberglass outer layer is outside of the core coating the wire, Thermaflex. When used to modify Polyflex, the fire resistant layer surrounds the polymer of Polyflex along its entire length.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polyflex in view of Thermaflex, as applied to in claim 1, in further view of Liebson (US 20100154914 A1), hereafter known as Liebson.
Regarding claim 4, Polyflex in view of Thermaflex discloses the flexible uninsulated duct of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the fire resistant barrier layer is adhered to the outer surface of the polymer core using an adhesive. However, Liebson discloses using adhesive to adhere a fire resistant barrier layer onto a surface (fig 11, paragraph 0092, aluminum ribbon layer 36, which is flame resistant by nature, is adhered to a surface of polyester ribbon 39 by a layer of heat and fire retardant adhesive 38, Liebson). Liebson describes a heat and flame resistant duct, a field closely related to Polyflex, Thermaflex, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Liebson into Polyflex in view of Thermaflex and use the adhesive of Liebson to attach the flame resistant layer of Thermaflex onto the duct of Polyflex. The adhesive of Liebson not only bonds the layers together, but is also fire retardant itself (paragraph 0092, Liebson), which provides additional heat and flame resistance to the duct.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polyflex in view of Thermaflex, as applied to in claim 1, in further view of Blummert (DE 102019216595 A1), hereafter known as Blummert.
Regarding claim 5, Polyflex in view of Thermaflex discloses the flexible uninsulated duct of claim 1, wherein the fire resistant barrier layer has first and second opposing longitudinal edges (not disclosed), the first and second opposing longitudinal edges sewn together such that the fire resistant barrier layer surrounds the outer surface of the polymer core (page 2, product image, outer surface of fiberglass fire resistant barrier layer is the outer surface of the duct, Thermaflex; when used to modify Polyflex, the fire resistant barrier sounds the outer surface of the polymer core of Polyflex, but sewing is not disclosed). Polyflex in view of Thermaflex does not disclose the fire resistant barrier layer having first and second opposing longitudinal edges, nor the first and second opposing longitudinal edges sewn together. However, Blummert teaches a protective outer layer with two opposing longitudinal edges (fig 5, Blummert), and sewing the two longitudinal edges together (fig 5, page 3 paragraph 5, Blummert). Blummert describes a protective tube for a pipe partially made of fiberglass, a field related to Polyflex, Thermaflex, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Blummert into Polyflex in view of Thermaflex and sew the two edges of the fire resistant layer of Thermaflex together when wrapping around the duct of Polyflex. Sewing fabric into a tube shape is well known in the art, and the stitching method of Blummert also provides a smooth internal seam (page 4, paragraph 4, Blummert), evenly distributing forces to the polymer duct core.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polyflex in view of Thermaflex, as applied to in claim 1, in further view of Graba (EP 2770238 A1) and Aubuchon (US 20200300405 A1), hereafter known as Graba and Aubuchon, respectively.
Regarding claim 7, Polyflex in view of Thermaflex discloses the flexible uninsulated duct of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the fire resistant barrier layer comprises a fire resistant fleece.
However, Graba discloses a fire resistant fleece made of mineral fibers (page 6, paragraphs 1-2, Graba). Graba describes a fire resistant insulation sleeve for protecting a pipe, a field related to Polyflex, Thermaflex, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Graba into Polyflex in view of Thermaflex and construct the fire resistant layer out of the fire resistant fleece of Graba. Mineral fibers are inherently more fire resistant than fiberglass, and the fluffier nature of the fleece structure compared to the braided structure of Polyflex better separates the duct from exterior heat sources, further improving the fire resistance of the layer.
Polyflex in view of Thermaflex and Graba does not disclose the fire resistant fleece including fire resistant staple fibers.
However, Aubuchon teaches using fire resistant mineral staple fibers to construct the outer fire resistant layer (page 7, paragraph 0043, the outer reinforcing layer, which is fire resistant, is constructed of fiberglass staple fiber yarn, fiberglass is a type of mineral fiber, Aubuchon). Aubuchon describes a flame resistant fire hose with a fiberglass outer heat resistant layer, a field related to Polyflex, Thermaflex, Graba, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Aubuchon into Polyflex in view of Thermaflex and Graba and construct the fire resistant layer out of staple fiber yarn. Staple fiber yarns are less expensive to make compared to filament yarns, reducing the cost of the duct.
Regarding claim 10, Polyflex in view of Thermaflex, Graba, and Aubuchon discloses the flexible uninsulated duct of claim 7, wherein the fire resistant fleece includes char scaffold fibers (page 6, paragraphs 1-2, Graba, the fibers of Graba are mineral fibers, which is an example of a char scaffold fiber.)
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polyflex in view of Thermaflex, as applied to in claim 1, in further view of American Duct Council’s book “Flexible Duct Performance and Installation Standards, Sixth Edition”, hereafter known as ADC.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Polyflex in view of Thermaflex discloses a flexible uninsulated duct that meets UL 181 Class 1 duct standard as well as the duct of claim 1, but does not disclose a method of moving conditioned or unconditioned air through a flexible uninsulated duct in an interior space of a structure, or providing one or more of the flexible uninsulated duct of claim 1 in the interior space.
However, ADC teaches moving air through several flexible uninsulated ducts (page 6, figures 1 and 2, air moves through a system of ducts, ADC) carry that are in an interior space of a structure (page 22, title 4.9.3, ducts can be installed inside wall and between floors, which are interior spaces of a structure, ADC). ADC describes installation standards for ducts in a building, a field closely related to Polyflex, Thermaflex, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of ADC into Polyflex in view of Thermaflex and install the duct of Polyflex in view of Thermaflex according to the standards of ADC. Installing to a known standard would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and would allow the duct to be used in places where compliance to ADC standard is required.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polyflex in view of Thermaflex, as applied to in claim 1, in further view of Industries 3R’s product “Type 1500-HT”, hereafter known as 3R.
Regarding claim 11, Polyflex in view of Thermaflex discloses the flexible uninsulated duct of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the fire resistant barrier layer is a polyurethane coated fiberglass fabric and the polyurethane coated fiberglass fabric has an outer surface forming the outer surface of the flexible uninsulated duct. However, 3R teaches a polyurethane coated fiberglass duct with the polyurethane coated fiberglass forming the outer surface of the duct (product description and figure, outer surface of the duct is made of polyurethane coated fiberglass, 3R). 3R is a product page for high temperature resistant duct, a field closely related to Polyflex, Thermaflex, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of 3R into Polyflex in view of Thermaflex and coat the fiberglass outer layer of Polyflex in view of Thermaflex with polyurethane in the same manner as in 3R. The coating would provide water and oil resistance, as well as abrasion resistance (product description, 3R).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cooke (US 4996099 A) discloses a fire resistant fabric with staple fibers that swell and form a char on exposure to flame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOTIAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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, Kenneth Rinehart, can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753