DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 11-18, 21-22, 24-29 are pending.
Claims 9-10, 19-20 and 23 are cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/12/26 has been entered.
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 1-8, 11-18, 24-29 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.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “the plank” in line 6, line 7 and again in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “each plank” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 16, claim 16 recites, “the plank” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “each plank” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 25, claim 25 recites, “the plank” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “each plank” and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 2-8, 11-15, 17-18, 24, 26-29 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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) 1-6, 8, 11-18, 21-22, 24-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollard (GB2191797) in view of Hageman (US 2005/0144850).
Re claim 1, Mollard discloses a flute filler (10) comprising:
a plurality of planks (14), each plank having a pair of end edges (end shown in Fig. 1, as well as the end on the other side thereof into the page) and a pair of side edges (left/right side edges of 14) with a longitudinal direction (into the page) extending between the pair of end edges (end shown in Fig. 1, as well as the end on the other side thereof into the page) and a pair of side edges (left/right side edges of 14); and
a sheet (12) with two side edges (the side edge shown in Fig. 1, as well as on the other side thereof into the page) with a longitudinal direction (left to right Fig. 1);
wherein each plank (14) is secured to the sheet (12) such that one end edge (the edge shown in Fig. 1) of the plank (14) is at one of the side edges (the edge shown in Fig. 1) of the sheet (12) and the plank (14) extends toward (Page 1 lines 27-31; Page 1 lines 73-90; each disclosing that each plank extends from one longitudinal edge of the sheet to the other at intervals) the other (into the page) of the side edges (the side edge of 12 opposite that shown in Fig. 1) of the sheet (12) and the plank (14) extends in the longitudinal direction (into the page) of the plank (14),
but fails to disclose the sheet with two end edges, the sheet overhangs the other of the end edge of each plank.
However, Hageman discloses the sheet (12) with two end edges (12b/12c), the sheet (12) overhangs the other of end edge (right end of 18, see Fig. 1-2) of each plank (18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flute filler of Mollard with the sheet with two end edges, the sheet overhangs the other of the end edge of each plank as disclosed by Hageman in order to overlap the preceding panels ([0025]). Doing so would provide a seamless look for better aesthetic (no gaps) and would provide a seal therebetween.
Re claim 2, Mollard as modified discloses a flute filler as set forth in claim 1 wherein the plurality of planks (14) are arranged side by side (Fig. 1) and spaced from one another (Fig. 1).
Re claim 3, Mollard as modified discloses a flute filler as set forth in claim 2 wherein the spacing (Fig. 1) between adjacent planks (14) is at a regular interval (Fig. 1; Page 1 lines 27-31; Page 1 lines 73-90).
Re claim 4, Mollard as modified discloses a flute filler as set forth in claim 2 wherein the planks (14) comprise an insulating material (Page 1 lines 69-73).
Re claim 5, Mollard as modified discloses a flute filler as set forth in claim 4 but fails to disclose wherein the planks comprise polystyrene or isocyanate insulating material.
However, Hageman discloses wherein the planks (18) comprise polystyrene or isocyanate insulating material ([0038])).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify flute filler of Mollard wherein the planks comprise polystyrene or isocyanate insulating material as disclosed by Hageman in order to utilize an inexpensive, readily available, easily formable insulating material. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 6, Mollard as modified discloses a flute filler as set forth in claim 2 wherein the planks (14) are secured to the sheet (12) by an adhesive (Page 1 lines 87-90).
Re claim 8, Mollard as modified discloses a flute filler as set forth in claim 2 but fails to disclose wherein the sheet is rectangular and has two end edges and two side edges.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flute filler of Mollard wherein the sheet is rectangular in order to use a simple, easy to design, easy to manufacture shape. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 11, Mollard as modified discloses a flute filler as set forth in claim 10 Hageman discloses wherein a first plank (one 18) is positioned such that one side edge (of 18) of the first plank (18) is at one of the end edges (end of 12) of the sheet (12) and a second plank (an adjacent 18) is positioned such that one side edge (side edge of 18) of the second plank (18) is spaced from (Fig. 1-2, due to the overhang) the other of the end edges (right edge of 12) of the sheet (12) such that the sheet (12) overhangs (Fig. 1-2) the side edge (edge of 18) of the second plank (an adjacent plank 18).
Re claim 12, Mollard as modified discloses a flute filler as set forth in claim 2 wherein the plurality of planks (14) are configured to be positioned between (Fig. 1) adjacent standing seams (16) of a standing seam roof (Fig. 1; in addition, 14 is at the very least capable of the claimed positioning).
Re claim 13, Mollard as modified discloses a flute filler as set forth in claim 2 but fails to disclose wherein each plank has a rectangular cross section.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flute filler of Mollard wherein each plank has a rectangular cross section in order to use a simple, easy to manufacture shape. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 14, Mollard as modified discloses a flute filler as set forth in claim 2 wherein the flute filler (10) can be rolled (Page 1 lines 91-96).
Re claim 15, Mollard as modified discloses a flute filler as set forth in claim 2 wherein each plank (14) has a trapezoidal cross section (Fig. 1-2; Page 1 lines 79-80).
Re claim 16, Mollard discloses a roofing system (Fig. 1-2) for a standing seam metal roof having a plurality of ribs and having valleys therebetween (Fig. 1-2 is capable of use for a standing seam metal roof having a plurality of ribs and having valleys therebetween; in addition, elements 14 are disposed in “valleys” and the upper corrugations constitute ribs) comprising:
a sheet (12) having a plurality of planks (14) secured thereto (Page 1 lines 69-73), the sheet with two side edges (the side edge shown in Fig. 1, as well as on the other side thereof into the page) with a longitudinal direction (left to right Fig. 1),
each plank (14) having a pair of end edges (ends of 14, one being that shown in Fig. 1 and the other being on the opposite side into the page) and a pair of side edges (left/right sides of 14) and a longitudinal direction (Fig. 1 into the page) extending between the pair of end edges (ends of 14, one being that shown in Fig. 1 and the other being on the opposite side into the page), and the planks (14) arranged to be side by side (Fig. 1) at spaced intervals (Fig. 2) such that each plank (14) is disposed in a valley (Fig. 1-2) and the sheet (12) overlies (Fig. 1-2) the planks (14);
wherein each plank (14) is secured to the sheet (12) such that one end edge (the edge shown in Fig. 1) of each plank is at one of the side edges (the edge shown in Fig. 1) of the sheet (12) and each plank (14) extends in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 1 into the page) of the plank (14) towards the other (into the page) of the side edges (the side edge of 12 opposite that shown in Fig. 1) of the sheet (12), and
a roofing membrane (20) disposed over (Fig. 1-2) the sheet (12),
but fails to disclose the sheet with two end edges, the sheet overhangs the other of the end edge of each plank.
However, Hageman discloses the sheet (12) with two end edges (12b/12c), the sheet (12) overhangs the other of end edge (right end of 18, see Fig. 1-2) of each plank (18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roofing system of Mollard with the sheet with two end edges, the sheet overhangs the other of the end edge of each plank as disclosed by Hageman in order to overlap the preceding panels ([0025]). Doing so would provide a seamless look for better aesthetic (no gaps) and would provide a seal therebetween.
Re claim 17, Mollard as modified discloses a roofing system as set forth in claim 16 further comprising a cover board (18) disposed between (Fig. 1-2) the sheet (12) and the roofing membrane (20).
Re claim 18, Mollard discloses a roofing system as set forth in claim 17 comprising a plurality of flute fillers (10; Page 1 lines 5-8 disclosing plural membranes), but fails to disclose wherein the sheet of each flute filler is rectangular.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roofing system of Mollard wherein the sheet of each flute filler is rectangular in order to use a simple, easy to design, easy to manufacture shape. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
In addition, it is noted that it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roofing system of Mollard to have a plurality of flute fillers in order to insulated a larger roof section than just a single flute filler. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 21, Mollard as modified discloses a roofing system as set forth in claim 16 wherein the spacing (Fig. 2) between adjacent planks (14) is uniform (Fig. 2).
Re claim 22, Mollard as modified discloses a roofing system as set forth in claim 16 wherein each plank (14) comprises an insulating material (Page 1 lines 69-73).
Re claim 24, Mollard as modified discloses a roofing system as set forth in claim 16, Hageman discloses wherein a first plank (one 18) is positioned such that one side edge (of 18) of the first plank (18) is at one of the end edges (end of 12) of the sheet (12) and a second plank (an adjacent 18) is positioned such that one side edge (side edge of 18) of the second plank (18) is spaced from (Fig. 1-2, due to the overhang) the other of the end edges (right edge of 12) of the sheet (12) such that the sheet (12) overhangs (Fig. 1-2) the side edge (edge of 18) of the second plank (an adjacent plank 18).
Re claim 25, Mollard discloses a method of filling flutes (between 16) in a standing seam roof having ribs (upper corrugations of 16) and valleys (lower corrugations of 16 into which 14 is disposed) comprising the steps of:
providing (Fig. 1 showing 10 provided) a flute filler (10) comprising a sheet (12) and a plurality of planks (14) secured on (Page 1 lines 69-73) the sheet (12), the sheet (12) with two side edges (the side edge shown in Fig. 1, as well as on the other side thereof into the page) with a longitudinal direction (left to right Fig. 1), each plank (14) having a pair of end edges (ends of 14, one shown in Fig. 1 and the other being into the page opposite that shown in Fig. 1) and a pair of side edges (left/right sides of 14) with a longitudinal direction (into the page) extending between the pair of end edges (ends of 14, one shown in Fig. 1 and the other being into the page opposite that shown in Fig. 1), wherein each plank (14) is secured to the sheet (12), wherein each plank (14) is secured to the sheet (12) such that one end edge (the edge shown in Fig. 1) of the plank (14) is at one of the side edges (the edge shown in Fig. 1) of the sheet (12) and the plank (14) extends toward (Page 1 lines 27-31; Page 1 lines 73-90; each disclosing that each plank extends from one longitudinal edge of the sheet to the other at intervals) the other (into the page) of the side edges (the side edge of 12 opposite that shown in Fig. 1) of the sheet (12) and the plank (14) extends in the longitudinal direction (into the page) of the plank (14)
placing (Fig. 1-2 showing placement; Page 1 lines 73-89) the plurality of planks (14) in the valleys (into which 14 is placed) of the standing seam roof (16) wherein the sheet (12) is disposed over (Fig. 1-2) the planks (14) and the standing seam roof (16) while the planks (14) are placed in the flutes (into which 14 is disposed),
but fails to disclose the sheet having two end edges, the sheet such that the sheet overhangs the other of the end edges of the planks, positioning the side of the sheet overhanging the end edges of each plank over an adjacent sheet and securing the side of the sheet overhanging the end edge of each plank to the adjacent sheet.
However, Hageman discloses the sheet (12) with two end edges (12b/12c), the sheet (12) overhangs the other of end edge (right end of 18, see Fig. 1-2) of each plank (18), positioning ([0026]) the side (12a/b) of the sheet (12) overhanging the end edge (right end of 18) of each plank (18) over an adjacent sheet (12; [0026]) and securing ([0033] and [0040] disclosing securing to a deck, and in doing so, securing 12 to adjacent boards 10, and the language does not require direct securement/contact) the side (12b) of the sheet (12) overhanging (Fig. 1) the end edge (right end of 18) of each plank (18) to the adjacent sheet (12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mollard with the sheet having two end edges, the sheet such that the sheet overhangs the other of the end edges of the planks, positioning the side of the sheet overhanging the end edges of each plank over an adjacent sheet and securing the side of the sheet overhanging the end edge of each plank to the adjacent sheet as disclosed by Hageman in order to overlap the preceding panels ([0025]). Doing so would provide a seamless look for better aesthetic (no gaps) and would provide a seal therebetween.
Re claim 26, Mollard as modified discloses a method as set forth in claim 25 further wherein the sheet (12) and the adjacent sheet (Hagmen: adjacent 12) having the planks (14) thereon are rolled (Page 1 lines 91-96) as provided and then unrolled (Page 1 lines 91-96) so as to place the plurality of planks (14) in the valleys (bottom corrugations which receive 14) of the standing seam roof (16) between adjacent ribs (upper corrugations of 16).
Re claim 27, Mollard as modified discloses a method as set forth in claim 25, Hageman discloses positioning ([0026]) the side (12a/b) of the sheet (12) overhanging the end edges (right end of 18) of each plank (18) over and adjacent sheet (12; [0026]) and securing ([0033] and [0040] disclosing securing to a deck, and in doing so, securing 12 to adjacent boards 10, and the language does not require direct securement/contact) the side (12b) of the sheet (12) overhanging (Fig. 1) the end edges (right end of 18) of each plank (18) to the adjacent sheet (12) to thereby provide a contiguous sheet (12, once each plank is adjacently laid).
Re claim 28, Mollard as modified discloses a flute filler as set forth in claim 2, Hageman discloses wherein the sheet (12) comprises a vapor barrier (14, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flute filler of Mollard wherein the sheet comprises a vapor barrier as disclosed by Hageman in order to prevent interior moisture from entering under and into the roof membrane which can cause blistering ([0047]).
Re claim 29, Mollard as modified discloses a roofing system as set forth in claim 2, Hageman discloses wherein the sheet (12) comprises a vapor barrier (14, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roofing system of Mollard wherein the sheet comprises a vapor barrier as disclosed by Hageman in order to prevent interior moisture from entering under and into the roof membrane which can cause blistering ([0047]).
Re claim 31, Mollard as modified discloses a flute filler as set forth in claim 1, wherein the longitudinal direction (Fig. 1, into the page) of each plank (14) is substantially perpendicular to (Page 1 lines 27-31; Page 1 lines 73-90; each disclosing that each plank extends from one longitudinal edge of the sheet to the other) the longitudinal direction (left to right of 12) of the sheet (12).
Re claim 32, Mollard as modified discloses a roofing system as set forth in claim 16, wherein the longitudinal direction (Fig. 1, into the page) of each plank (14) is substantially perpendicular to (Page 1 lines 27-31; Page 1 lines 73-90; each disclosing that each plank extends from one longitudinal edge of the sheet to the other) the longitudinal direction (left to right of 12) of the sheet (12).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollard (GB2191797) in view of Hageman (US 2005/0144850) and Rotter et al (“Rotter”) (US 2004/0109983).
Re claim 7, Mollard discloses a flute filler as set forth in claim 2 but fails to disclose wherein the planks are secured to the sheet with double sided tape.
However, Rotter discloses wherein the planks (Fig. 1) are secured to the sheet (Mollard:12) with double sided tape ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify flute filler of Mollard wherein the planks are secured to the sheet with double sided tape as disclosed by Rotter in order to secure the planks to the sheet in a secure, tool-less manner.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Claims: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claim objections is persuasive and objection to the claims is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is partially persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby partially withdrawn but for those that remain in the above. In addition, Applicant’s amendments have led to new rejections under 35 USC 112, in addition, in the above.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102 and/or 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amended language, effectively requiring that the length of the planks extend along the width of the sheet, from side to side, in a spaced manner. Applicant contends that Mollard does not disclose this feature. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Mollard does not detail the other side of the sheet in the Figures, it makes it clear in the specification that the planks extend across the length of the sheet at spaced intervals. This is detailed on Page 1 lines 27-31 and Page 1 lines 73-90, each disclosing that each plank extends from one longitudinal edge of the sheet to the other. As such, each plank 14 extends as claimed.
Further, Applicant contends that neither Mollard nor Hageman disclose a sheet extending beyond an edge of planks arranged on a sheet. As noted above, Mollard discloses a plurality of planks on a sheet. Mollard does not disclose a sheet which extends beyond the edge of planks. Hageman discloses a sheet which extends beyond the edge of a plank. Therefore, for the reasons provided above, the combination meets the claim.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the remaining independent claims and the dependent claims are addressed by the above remarks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights