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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, after ‘according’, please insert – to --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please add the full definition of ‘EPS’ at the end of the word. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-4 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
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 1-4 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.
In claim 1, line 4, the phrase ‘with brackets fixed inside an EPS insulating panel’ is unclear to the examiner. Are the brackets the same bracket claimed in line 3, or are there new brackets introduced? The examiner will examine the claims as best understood, i.e. the brackets are the same.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘561 (CN204475561).
For claim 1, ‘561 discloses a tile (fig. 1) for thermal and acoustic insulation comprising engravings (markings caused by 37) arranged along an inside part of the tile (2), wherein the tile is hung and glued (page 2 paragraph 3) to a hook of a bracket (3) with the brackets fixed inside an insulating panel (1, it would be obvious to make the panel of EPS since EPS is a well-known insulating foam), with a production method according to the following steps: “a- putting the brackets inside a closed shell mold, b- inserting inside the closed shell mold polystyrene added with graphite, c- expanding the polystyrene inside the closed shell mold, d- sintering the polystyrene added with graphite, e- cooling and extracting by opening of the closed shell mold, wherein the tile for thermal and acoustic insulation is coupled with the EPS insulating panel added with graphite” (method treated as a product by process limitation in accordance with MPEP 2113).
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘561 (CN204475561) in view of ‘902 (CN113293902).
For claim 2, ‘561 does not disclose that the EPS insulating panel is arranged on staggered floors.
‘902 discloses a tile with an insulating panel (fig. 7) that is arranged on staggered floors.
It would have been obvious to stagger the floors of the EPS insulating panel of ‘561 as made obvious by ‘902 to provide a tongue and groove connection for the tiles.
For claim 3, the combination discloses the obviousness of adding metal plates (‘902 fig. 7, 102, 103) with central holes along the sides of the staggered floor to provide connection means for connecting the panels to each other and to walls.
For claim 4, the combination discloses that in the central holes fixing means (‘902 fig. 10, 200) are inserted for connection to a wall of the tile.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 JOSHUA K IHEZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5347. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, 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.
/JOSHUA K IHEZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633