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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/13/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: "over a portion of the exterior of the cylindrical" in line 2 should read "over a portion of an exterior of the cylindrical". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosal (US 2008/0045137 A1), in view of Sobotka (US 2016/0102183 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rosal teaches a method of insulating a register box (20 in Figures 1-3; paragraphs 0035-0037), the register box having a body (section 21) and a duct (section 25) which opens to an interior of the body (as shown in Figures 1-3, section 25 opens to interior of section 21), the method comprising:
accessing the register box such that the interior of the register box can be reached (as shown in Figure 2); and
injecting an insulation coating (23) into the interior of the body of the register box (Figure 2; paragraph 0036)
Rosal teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose removing existing insulation from the interior of the body of the register box; the insulation coating being an expandable polymeric material; nor allowing the insulation coating to cure for a period of time within the interior of the body of the register box.
With respect to removing existing insulation, it is noted Rosal discloses the insulation coating is sprayed (Figure 2; paragraph 0035). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have removed any existing insulation from the interior of the register box to allow good coverage/contact with the interior. Further, it would have been obvious to allow the insulation coating to cure to set the insulation coating in place.
Sobotka teaches a conventional method for insulating a wall box (i.e., register box) is to use a spray gun to apply polyurethane foam (i.e., expandable polymeric material) to the wall of the wall box (paragraph 0005). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the expandable polymeric material disclosed by Sobotka for the insulation coating of Rosal and the results of the substitution would have been predictable to one skilled in the art. One would have been motivated to use an expandable polymeric material for better insulation and coverage.
Regarding claim 2, Rosal, in view of Sobotka, further discloses blocking an opening of the duct during the step of curing (Figure 1 of Rosal, showing opening of duct section 25 being closed by either by reference 30 or implicitly by end of duct 31).
Regarding claim 19, Rosal, in view of Sobotka, further discloses the expandable polymeric material being polyurethane (paragrpah 0005 of Sobotka)
Claim(s) 5-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosal, in view of Sobotka and Lahey (US 2014/0167405 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Rosal, as modified by Sobotka, teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the register box being affixed to sheetrock, the body of the register box having an opening extending through a thickness of the sheetrock, the step of injecting comprising:
inserting a foam gun into the opening of the body of the register box; and
directing the expandable polymeric material from the foam gun toward a wall of the body of the register box.
However, Rosal discloses providing the body of the register box through a ceiling (Figure 1; paragraph 0031 of Rosal). Lahey discloses wherein a body (25 in Figures) of a register box (insert 5; paragraph 0028-0029) is affixed to drywall or a ceiling (construction surface 64 in Figures; paragraph 0012, construction surface being drywall (i.e., sheetrock)). Hence, providing the body of a register box through sheetrock is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have substituted the register box of Lahey with that of modified Rosal (specifically, of providing within sheetrock) and the results of the substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to provide insulation to register boxes within drywall.
Further, Rosal discloses inserting a spray nozzle into the opening of the body of the register box and directed material towards a wall thereof (50 in Figure 2 of Rosal). Sobotka discloses a conventional method for insulating a wall box (i.e., register box) is to use a spray gun to apply polyurethane foam (i.e., expandable polymeric material) to the wall of the wall box (paragraph 0005 of Sobotka). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have further modified Rosal and utilized a spray gun, as disclosed by Sobotka, as ease of handling of a spray gun (versa a pump or compressor as in Rosal).
Regarding claim 6, Rosal, as modified by Sobotka and Lahey, teaches all the elements of claim 5, but does not disclose rotating the foam gun so as to direct the expandable polymeric material from the foam gun toward all side walls of the body of the register box. However, it is submitted one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to rotate the spray gun to all sides of the body of the register box in order to cover all surfaces therein.
Regarding claim 11, Rosal, as modified by Sobotka and Lahey, teaches all the elements of claim 5, but does not disclose pulling the existing insulation from the interior of the register box by hand through the opening of the body of the register box. It would have been obvious to manually removed all the existing insulation for ease of access to the interior as well for cost savings (i.e., no additional equipment required).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosal, in view of Sobotka and Klomparens (US 1,788,721).
Regarding claim 14, Rosal, as modified by Sobotka, teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the register box being affixed to a floor, the body of the register box having an opening extending through a thickness of the floor, the step of injecting comprising:
inserting a foam gun into the opening of the body of the register box; and
directing the expandable polymeric material from the foam gun toward a wall of the body of the register box.
However, Rosal discloses providing the body of the register box through a ceiling (Figure 1; paragraph 0031 of Rosal). Klomparens discloses wherein a register box is provided within flooring (page 2, lines 90-93). Hence, providing the body of a register box within flooring is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have substituted the register box of Lahey with that of modified Rosal (specifically, of providing within flooring) and the results of the substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to provide insulation to register boxes within flooring.
Further, Rosal discloses inserting a spray nozzle into the opening of the body of the register box and directed material towards a wall thereof (50 in Figure 2 of Rosal). Sobotka discloses a conventional method for insulating a wall box (i.e., register box) is to use a spray gun to apply polyurethane foam (i.e., expandable polymeric material) to the wall of the wall box (paragraph 0005 of Sobotka). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have further modified Rosal and utilized a spray gun, as disclosed by Sobotka, as ease of handling of a spray gun (versa a pump or compressor as in Rosal).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosal, in view of Sobotka, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Gantenbein (US 2014/0339320 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Rosal, as modified by Sobotka, teaches all elements of claim 5, but does not disclose applying a nozzle to the foam gun, the nozzle being affixed to an outlet of the foam gun.
Gantenbein teaches a spray foam gun (Figures) suited for in-situ applications of polyurethane foam (paragraph 0004), comprising a detachable nozzle attached to an end thereof (13 in Figures 5-7; paragraph 0063). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have substituted the spray gun of Gantenbein for that of modified by Rosal and the results would have been predictable. One would have been motivated to use a spray gun with detachable nozzle for different spray patterns, as disclosed by Gantenbein (paragrpah 0063).
Regarding claim 8, Rosal, as modified by Sobotka and Gantenbein, teaches all the elements of claim 7 and further discloses the nozzle being a replaceable straw (Figure 19; paragraph 0024, 0082).
Regarding claim 17, Rosal, as modified by Sobotka, teaches all elements of claim 5, but does not disclose the foam gun having a nozzle formed from a replaceable straw, the method further comprising:
removing the nozzle from the foam gun following the step of injecting the expandable polymeric material.
Gantenbein teaches a spray foam gun (Figures) suited for in-situ applications of polyurethane foam (paragraph 0004), comprising a detachable nozzle attached to an end thereof (13 in Figures 5-7; paragraph 0063), wherein the nozzle is a replaceable straw (Figure 19; paragraph 0024, 0082). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have substituted the spray gun of Gantenbein for that of modified by Rosal and the results would have been predictable. One would have been motivated to use a spray gun with detachable nozzle for different spray patterns, as disclosed by Gantenbein (paragrpah 0063). Further, Gantenbein teaches the nozzle is a disposable nozzle (paragraph 0055). It would have been obvious to remove the nozzle after injection the expandable polymeric material to dispose the used nozzle for a new nozzle; hence, providing a better spray thereafter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: C
“…inserting a cylindrical or rectilinear member into the interior of the body of the register box so as to bear against the opening of the duct.” with respect to claim 3; and
“positioning a panel over the opening of the body of the register box, the panel having a port therethrough; and
extending a portion of the foam gun through the port of the panel so as to enter the interior of the body of the register box.” with respect to claims 9 and 15.
The closest prior art, Rosal (US 2008/0045137 A1), teaches a method of insulating a register box (20 in Figures 1-3; paragraphs 0035-0037), the register box having a body (section 21) and a duct (section 25) which opens to an interior of the body (as shown in Figures 1-3, section 25 opens to interior of section 21), the method comprising: accessing the register box such that the interior of the register box can be reached (as shown in Figure 2); and injecting an insulation coating (23) into the interior of the body of the register box (Figure 2; paragraph 0036). However, Rosal fails to teach or suggest inserting a cylindrical or rectilinear member into the interior of the body of the register box so as to bear against the opening of the duct to block said opening during a step of curing the insulation coating; nor does Rosal teach of suggest positioning a panel over the opening of the body of the register box, the panel having a port therethrough; and extending a portion of a foam gun through the port of the panel so as to enter the interior of the body of the register box.
Claims 4, 10, 12-13, 16 and 18 would be allowable at least for depending on claims 3, 9 and 15, respectively.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 6/16/2026
Prosecution Insights