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 .
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites“and an or the outlet”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 6-10, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koca (US 20150218813).
Regarding claim 1,
Referring to Fig. 1, Koca teaches a composite heating panel 23 comprising: a front panel 1 having opposite front and rear surfaces; a heat dissipation panel 2 in contact with the rear surface of the front panel; an insulated panel 4; and an elongate length of tubing 3 for receiving a flow of fluid therethrough (see par. 26), the fluid being at above ambient temperature (e.g. heating, see par. 26), wherein the length of tubing is disposed between the insulated panel 4 and the heat dissipation panel 2, and the length of tubing follows a tortuous flow path including at least one bend (see Fig. 1a): wherein the rear surface of the front panel includes a channel 14 in which at least a part of the length of tubing is seated (see par. 38, claim 2).
Regarding claim 4,
Koca teaches wherein the length of tubing forms a pipework layer including a plurality of straight sections and a plurality of 180 degree bends (e.g. to form a reversal of flow direction such as in a U-bend, see Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 6,
Koca teaches wherein the pipework layer comprises a first set of 180 degree bends at a first end of the front panel (e.g. towards a top of said front panel), a second set of 180 degree bends at a second end of the front panel (e.g. towards a bottom of said front panel), and the plurality of straight sections extend between the first and second sets of 180 degree bends.
Regarding claim 7,
Koca teaches in which the heat dissipation panel comprises a plurality of straight channels in which the straight sections of the pipework layer are seated (see Fig. 1a).
Regarding claims 8-9,
Koca teaches wherein the heat dissipation panel is bonded to the front panel, and wherein the insulated panel is bonded to the heat dissipation panel (see par. 38).
Regarding claim 10,
Koca teaches a backing board 5 in contact with the insulated panel.
Regarding claim 12,
Koca teaches an inlet at a first end of the length of tubing and an or the outlet at a second end of the length of tubing (see pars. 48-49), and in which the inlet and the outlet each extend through an aperture in the front panel (See pars. 48-49).
Regarding claim 14,
Koca teaches in which at least one side edge of the insulated panel includes a rebate (see Fig. 8, wherein insulated panel 12 comprises a rebate 41 wherein said rebate 41 is used to snap-fit adjacent composite heating panels).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 3, 5, 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koca.
Regarding claim 3,
Koca teaches the heat dissipation panel 2 includes at least one channel 15, and wherein the channel of the heat dissipation panel is disposed in the channel of the front panel (see Fig. 1b), and a part of the length of tubing is seated in the channel of the heat dissipation panel (see pars. 38, 41).
Koca teaches that the heat dissipation panel may be formed of aluminum foil (see par. 39, claim 8) but does not teach that the heat dissipation panel is corrugated.
However, the examiner takes official notice that the use of, and advantages of corrugated aluminum foil would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Koca and arrive at the claimed invention in order to provide a known material with, for example, enhanced flexibility and mechanical stability while efficiently dissipating heat.
Regarding claim 5,
Koca does not teach the pipework layer includes a first 180 degree bend that lies on an inside of a second 180 degree bend, but the examiner takes official notice that the use of, and advantage of a first 180 degree bend that lies on an inside of a second 180 degree bend (e.g. a double-bended pipework system), would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Koca and arrive at the claimed invention with the motivation of, for example increasing surface area of the pipework layer without significantly increasing the footprint of said pipework layer.
Regarding claim 11,
Koca does not teach wherein one or both of the front panel and the backing board are made from a gypsum fibre board.
Since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Koca and arrive at the claimed invention in order to provide a material with known advantages (e.g. fire or moisture resistance etc.).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koca in view of Conybeare (US 20180073244).
Regarding claim 13,
Koca does not teach a pair of adjustable legs.
Conybeare, directed to a modular panel assembly with heating pipework, teaches a pair of adjustable legs 36.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Koca by Conybeare with the motivation of stabilizing the heating panel of Koca in a vertical direction (see Conybeare, par. 80).
The remaining subject matter of claim 13 is directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claim 1 and has been addressed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 15-17, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koca in view of Fiedrich (US 20040040693).
Regarding claim 15,
Koca teaches a composite heating panel according to claim 1, but does not teach a wall system comprising: a stud member; and the composite heating panel according to Claim 1 positioned adjacent the stud member and secured to the stud member.
Fiedrich, directed to a composite heating panel, teaches a wall system comprising: a stud member 89; and a composite heating panel 40 positioned adjacent the stud member and secured to the stud member (see Figs. 9-10, par. 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Koca in view of the teachings of Fiedrich (e.g. to comprise a wall system comprising a stud member wherein the composite heating panel is secured to the stud member) with the motivation of securely bearing and supporting the composite heating panel (see Fiedrich par. 61).
Regarding claims 16-17,
Koca as modified teaches wherein the composite heating panel is secured to the stud member on a first side of the stud member (see Fiedrich Figs. 9-10), but does not teach the wall system further comprises a pre-fabricated composite wall panel secured to the stud member on a second side of the stud member, the composite wall panel including a front panel, a rear panel and an insulating panel between the front and rear panels, in which a thickness of the composite heating panel is the same as a thickness of the pre-fabricated composite wall panel.
However, it is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Since applicant has not disclosed that placing a second pre-fabricated composite wall panel within the system does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. providing for multiple insulation and/or heating panels), the mere duplication of a composite wall panel is not considered to have patentable significance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention, to modify Koca as modified above to include a second (e.g. pre-fabricated) composite wall panel, in order to predictably provide multiple wall panels in a single system.
Regarding claims 18-20,
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Buff, Kayhart, Whang, Horvath, Fiedrich, Ingram teach composite heating panels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at (571) 272-6681. 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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights