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 .
The amendment filed on 24 July 2025 in response to the non-final rejection mailed on 24 April 2025 has been considered. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are pending. Claim(s) 4 has/have been canceled. Claim(s) 1-3 has/have been examined in this action.
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 and 3 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 claim 1, lines 5 and 11, the claim recited the limitation “a roofing element” but it is unclear which portion of the roofing system is the “roofing element” or if the roofing element and the roofing system are one in the same. Are the panel, the thermal insulation, and the weathering sheet forming the roofing element? OR is the heating element encapsulated within the panel, and the panel is further embedded in a roofing element, which is then covered by thermal insulation and a weathering sheet? If the claim is in fact reciting the second situation, then the drawings and the disclosure do not appear to support the panel further embedded within a roofing element. The claim has been examined as having an encapsulated heating element forming a panel, the panel then further covered by a thermal insulation layer and a weathering layer.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “including but not limited to” is being interpreted in the same manner as the phrase “such as”; therefore "including but not limited to" 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).
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and is rejected herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2,540,295 to Schreiber.
Regarding claim 1, Schreiber discloses a roofing system of a pet house (Schreiber discloses ceiling panels secured to beams of a building; ceiling panels are capable of providing both ceiling interior and roofing exterior; the building also capable of housing a pet), comprising: an insulated heating element (layer 14, with 15 and 16) of specified heat output, wherein the heating element functions as a heat source (radiant heating element) and is encapsulated between insulating and covering sheets (12, 18, 19) to form a panel embedded within a roofing element (Fig.3); a thermal insulation material disposed on top of said panel (10; asbestos cement board has insulating properties) to prevent escape of heat into the atmosphere and a thermal cutout (thermostat control 34 or electric current switch) configured to limit the temperature of the roofing system and to prevent the heating element from exceeding a maximum temperature (thermostat will set the temperature and will shut off the system as will a switch); and a weathering sheet (foil layer 13; capable of protecting the thermal insulation layer) disposed on top of the thermal insulation material to form an outer protective layer of the roofing element.
Regarding claim 2, further comprising a thermostat (34) electrically connected to the heating element and configured to regulate temperature within the pet house.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,234,116 B1 to Havener in view of US 2,540,295 to Schreiber.
Regarding claim 1, Havener discloses a roofing system of a pet house, comprising: an insulated roofing element (22) having thermal insulation material (82) to prevent escape of heat into the atmosphere and a weathering sheet (34) disposed on top of the thermal insulation material to form an outer protective layer of the roofing element.
Havener does not specifically disclose a heating element within the roofing element.
Schreiber discloses an insulated heating element (layer 14, with 15 and 16) of specified heat output, wherein the heating element functions as a heat source (radiant heating element) and is encapsulated between insulating and covering sheets (12, 18, 19) to form a panel embedded within a roofing element (Fig.3); a thermal insulation material disposed on top of said panel (10 and 13; asbestos cement board has insulating properties) to prevent escape of heat into the atmosphere and a thermal cutout (thermostat control 34 or electric current switch) configured to limit the temperature of the roofing system and to prevent the heating element from exceeding a maximum temperature (thermostat will set the temperature and will shut off the system as will a switch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the roofing element of Havener with an insulated heating element as taught by Schreiber so to enable a user to better regulate the temperature of the pet house during cold months, thereby enable the roofing element to be opened during warm months and radiantly heated during cold months.
Regarding claim 2, Schreiber discloses further comprising a thermostat (34) electrically connected to the heating element and configured to regulate temperature within the pet house.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2,540,295 to Schreiber in view of GB 2 244 194 A to Tall (Same applies to the rejection of Havener in view of Schreiber).
Regarding claim 3, Schreiber discloses wherein the insulating and covering sheets encapsulating the heating element are composed of fabric impregnated with phenol formaldehyde but does not disclose a material such as calcium silicate or fiber cement which is known to be incombustible and non-ignitable.
Phenol Formaldehyde is known to be highly resistant to heat, has excellent fire resistance and good flame and smoke properties.
Tall discloses providing a radiant heating element encapsulated by calcium silicate panels (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have insulated the element of Schreiber with a non-combustible and non-ignitable material so to prevent any chance of fire with the pet structure due to the heating elements located within a building panel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635