DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits in response to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 9/19/2023. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending and are under consideration.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s original claims filed on 9/19/2023 do not comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) based on the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 10 have been amended but are not listed as amended claims. The claims contain strikethrough text (claim 2, line 2; claim 10, line 5). The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2). In order to advance prosecution, the examiner treated the unmarked text as if it were underlined. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered). 37 CFR 1.121(c). In order to advance prosecution, the examiner treated the claims as being originally-filed claims with the strikethrough text being typos. However, any future amendment that does not include proper text markings or claim status identifiers in the claims may result in the amendment being treated as non-compliant under 37 CFR 1.121(c). MPEP 714.03.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 9/19/2023 are acceptable for examination.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1, “the matching existing roof and new roof” (lines 4-5) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. While the claim previously defines an existing roof and a new roof matchingly secured to the hardware, the claim does not previously define a matching existing roof and new roof. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the existing roof and the new roof”, or equivalent. See also claim 14.
Claim 3, “adjacent climate spaces” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. The limitation defines plural climate spaces. However, the claim previously defines only one climate space. Does applicant intend for the limitation to include the previously recited climate space?
Claim 10, “a new roof matchingly secured to the existing roof with hardware” is indefinite because “hardware” lacks antecedent basis. The claim previously requires hardware (line 3). Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to different/additional hardware, or does it include the previously recited hardware?
Claim 10, “a higher temperature therein” is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires. It is unclear what the temperature is required to be higher than in the claim, as the limitation lacks a point of reference with respect to another temperature. Does applicant intend for a temperature in the climate space to be higher than a temperature at another location in the structural facility? Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language. See also claim 18.
Claim 11, “the facility” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the structural facility” or equivalent. See also claim 13.
Claim 13, “the vent” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the previously recited reversible vent? This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the reversible vent” or equivalent.
Claim 13, “the higher elevation point opening” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Further it is unclear what the elevation point opening is higher than in the claim, as the limitation lacks a point of reference. Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language.
Claim 17, “the next day” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that a next day is not previously recited in the claim. Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language.
Claim 19, “closer to a melted state” is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires, as the limitation lacks a point of reference. It is unclear what “closer to” requires, as it is unclear what phase change material is closer than in the claim. Does applicant intend for the limitation to require closer to a melted state than a solid state, gas state or other state?
The remainder of the claims are dependent upon directly or indirectly a rejected base claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,761,211 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are drawn to substantially the same invention with minor differences and phraseology, with the claims of the reference patent being narrower than the claims of the instant application. The claims of the instant application recite functional language pertaining to air in the climate space being intended to be in a substantially static state (claims 1 and 14). The claims of the instant application further recite functional language pertaining to air being intended to be in either a static state or a circulating state (claim 10). It is noted that such recitations are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). The claimed structure of the reference patent is suitable to perform the intended use of accommodating air in a substantially static state, since the respective claimed structures of the reference patent and the instant invention are substantially the same. Thus, the claims of the reference patent encompass the scope of the claims of the instant application.
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, 8-10, 14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane (US 9027286) in view of Jablonka et al. (US 20060099361) (‘Jablonka’).
Claim 1, Lane teaches a roof system comprising:
hardware (20 and/or 22) for securing to an existing roof (Fig. 5) of a structural facility (“existing corrugated metal or low-profile metal roofing system that includes a plurality of metal roof panels 4 installed on purlins 6” col. 2, lines 39-42);
a new roof (a new roof is installed on top of channels, but is not shown in the drawings; col. 3, lines 10-12) matchingly secured to the hardware (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the new roof is secured to the hardware in such a way that a surface configuration of the new roof matches a surface configuration of the hardware, as exceedingly broadly claimed; col. 3, lines 57-60); and
at least one insulation material positioned in a climate space between the matching existing roof and new roof that is supported by the existing roof (insulation may be disposed in the space between the old roof and the new roof; col. 2, lines 9-10 and 55-57), the climate space to accommodate air therein in a substantially static state (it is understood that the climate space is suitable to accommodate air therein in a substantially static state, as the new roof is installed over the existing roof without vents or a forced air system, and the climate space is nonetheless capable of comprising both air and an additional insulation material, as exceedingly broadly claimed; col. 3, lines 34-36).
Lane does not teach the insulation material comprising a phase change material assembly.
However, Jablonka teaches a roof system of a structural facility (Fig. 8) comprising at least one phase change material assembly 58 installed within corrugations on a roof (Fig. 8). Jablonka teaches the roof system causing a lowering of temperature inside the structural facility during a period of warm weather, while releasing heat when cool night temperatures prevail, so that a balanced climate is brought about in the structural facility [0028]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the insulation material by incorporating a phase change material assembly, with the reasonable expectation of success of further balancing the difference between an outside temperature and an interior temperature in the structural facility (Jablonka [0031]).
Claim 2, as modified above, the combination of Lane and Jablonka teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Lane further teaches clip 20 and channels 22 being able to be provided in different heights (Lane col. 3, lines 35-45). Jablonka further teaches the phase change material assembly being any cross-sectional shape or size (Jablonka [0017]). Jablonka further teaches a substantial air space height above the top of the phase change material (Jablonka Fig. 8). Lane does not teach the climate space between the existing roof and the new roof being no more than about 4 inches in distance (note that “about” as recited throughout the claims was treated as a relative term of degree under the plain meaning and in accordance with applicant’s specification to mean reasonably close to) and a minority of the climate space occupied by the phase change material assembly is less than about one inch of the distance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the climate space between the existing roof and the new roof being no more than about 4 inches in distance and a minority of the climate space occupied by the phase change material assembly is less than about one inch of the distance, with the reasonable expectation of success of obtaining desired insulation properties, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 3, as modified above, the combination of Lane and Jablonka teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the hardware includes a plurality of orifices to promote air communication between adjacent climate spaces divided by the hardware (Lane orifices defined by spaces between 20 and/or 22 in the grid shown in Fig. 1 in a vertical and/or horizontal direction as shown in Figs. 4-5).
Claim 4, as modified above, the combination of Lane and Jablonka teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the existing roof comprises ribs (Lane 8, 10; Jablonka 53), and the at least one phase change material assembly is positioned at a location that is in a valley between the ribs (Jablonka Fig. 8).
Claim 5, as modified above, the combination of Lane and Jablonka teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the phase change material assembly includes a reflective layer (Jablonka foil 59; [0061]; Fig. 8) in thermally conductive communication with a phase change material (Jablonka in direct contact with the phase change material 58 and thus in thermally conductive communication with the phase change material, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 8).
Claim 6, as modified above, the combination of Lane and Jablonka teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the reflective layer is a material having a thermally conductive K value of greater than about 0.15 (Jablonka the reflective layer comprises a diffusion-proof plastic material; under the basic properties of materials, such diffusion-proof plastic material would be expected to have a thermally conductive K value of greater than about 0.15). In the event that applicant disagrees that Jablonka’s reflective layer has a thermally conductive K value of greater than about 0.15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a known and readily available diffusion-proof plastic material that has a thermally conductive K value of greater than about 0.15, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known, readily available material to form the thermally conductive layer to house the phase change material that both acts as a reflective layer during periods of warm weather and as an insulator during periods of cool weather to balance the indoor climate in the structural facility, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim 8, as modified above, the combination of Lane and Jablonka teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the phase change material assembly comprises a phase change material with a melting point of between about 70°F and 90°F (Jablonka; calcium chloride hexahydrate [0038] is known to have a melting point of 86°F, which falls within the claimed range and thus meets the claim).
Claim 9, as modified above, the combination of Lane and Jablonka teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the phase change material includes a substance selected from a group consisting of calcium chloride hexahydrate, sodium sulfate, paraffin, a fatty acid and coconut oil (Jablonka; calcium chloride hexahydrate [0038]).
Claim 10, Lane teaches a structural facility comprising:
an existing roof (“existing corrugated metal or low-profile metal roofing system that includes a plurality of metal roof panels 4 installed on purlins 6” col. 2, lines 39-42);
hardware (20 and/or 22) secured to the existing roof (Figs. 1 and 4-5);
a new roof (a new roof is installed on top of channels, but is not shown in the drawings; col. 3, lines 10-12) matchingly secured to the existing roof with hardware (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the new roof is secured to the existing roof with the hardware in such a way that a surface configuration of the new roof matches a surface configuration of the new roof, as exceedingly broadly claimed; col. 3, lines 57-60; note that there are several different ways the new roof could be considered to be matchingly secured to the existing roof, such as being parallel to one another; Figs. 4-7); and
at least one insulation material positioned in a climate space between the existing roof and the new roof (insulation may be disposed in the space between the old roof and the new roof; col. 2, lines 9-10 and 55-57), the climate space of an architecture to promote one of retaining air to maintain a higher temperature therein and circulating air out of the climate space to reduce temperature therein (it is understood that the climate space is of an architecture that is suitable to promote maintaining a higher temperature therein, as exceedingly broadly claimed; col. 3, lines 34-36; note that the claim does not define what the temperature is higher than in the claim, but that Lane nonetheless teaches insulation capable of being inserted into the space between the existing roof and the new roof, as air would be expected to be trapped from solar radiation, and heat in the structural facility would be expected to rise upwardly).
Lane does not teach the insulation material comprising a phase change material assembly.
However, Jablonka teaches a structural facility comprising a roof system (Fig. 8) comprising at least one phase change material assembly 58 installed within corrugations on a roof (Fig. 8). Jablonka teaches the roof system of the structural facility causing a lowering of temperature inside the structural facility during a period of warm weather, while releasing heat when cool night temperatures prevail, so that a balanced climate is brought about in the structural facility [0028]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the insulation material of the roof system of the structural facility by incorporating a phase change material assembly, with the reasonable expectation of success of further balancing the difference between an outside temperature and an interior temperature in the structural facility (Jablonka [0031]).
Claim 14, Lane teaches a method comprising:
installing a framework of hardware (20 and/or 22) at a top surface of an existing roof of a facility (“existing corrugated metal or low-profile metal roofing system that includes a plurality of metal roof panels 4 installed on purlins 6” col. 2, lines 39-42) to support a matching new roof there above (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the new roof, which is not shown in the drawings, can be considered to match the existing roof in a number of ways, including being parallel to the existing roof, as exceedingly broadly claimed), the framework of hardware to support a climate space between the matching existing and new roofs (space between the existing roof and the new roof; Figs. 4-5 and 6-7);
placing an insulation material at a top surface of the existing roof between segments of the framework of hardware (insulation may be disposed in the space between the old roof and the new roof; col. 2, lines 9-10 and 55-57);
securing the new roof to the framework of hardware over the existing roof (col. 3, lines 55-60); and
retaining air in the climate space in a substantially static condition (it is understood that the climate space is suitable to accommodate air therein in a substantially static state, as the new roof is installed over the existing roof without vents or a forced air system, and the climate space is nonetheless capable of comprising both air and an additional insulation material, as exceedingly broadly claimed; col. 3, lines 34-36).
Lane does not teach the insulation material comprising a phase change material assembly.
However, Jablonka teaches a roof system of a structural facility (Fig. 8) comprising at least one phase change material assembly 58 installed within corrugations on a roof (Fig. 8). Jablonka teaches the roof system causing a lowering of temperature inside the structural facility during a period of warm weather, while releasing heat when cool night temperatures prevail, so that a balanced climate is brought about in the structural facility [0028]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the insulation material by incorporating a phase change material assembly, with the reasonable expectation of success of further balancing the difference between an outside temperature and an interior temperature in the structural facility (Jablonka [0031]).
Claim 16, as modified above, the combination of Lane and Jablonka teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches utilizing phase change material of the at least one phase change material assembly to absorb heat from airspace of the climate space above the assembly and modulate heat within the facility during daytime (Jablonka [0028], [0063]).
Claim 17, as modified above, the combination of Lane and Jablonka teaches all the limitations of claim 16, and further teaches releasing the absorbed heat from the phase change material and into the airspace at night to freeze the material for heat absorption the next day (Jablonka [0028], [0063]).
Claim 18, as modified above, the combination of Lane and Jablonka teaches all the limitations of claim 17, and further teaches wherein the retaining further comprises maintaining a higher temperature for the climate space (Jablonka it is understood that the space under the new roof would be expected to be elevated due to solar radiation and rising heat from inside the structural facility [0028], [0063]).
Claim 19, as modified above, the combination of Lane and Jablonka teaches all the limitations of claim 18, and further teaches keeping the phase change material closer to a melted state (the structure is taught by Lane and Jablonka and thus would be expected to perform the same as the claimed invention, especially during a period when the phase change material is in a temperature range that causes the phase change material to be closer to a melted state).
Claim 20, as modified above, the combination of Lane and Jablonka teaches all the limitations of claim 19, and further teaches wherein the melted state of the phase change material serves to promote a higher temperature for a facility space of the facility below the roofs (Jablonka during periods of cool weather [0028], [0063]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray (US 20110016803) in view of Jablonka et al. (US 20060099361) (‘Jablonka’).
Claim 10, Ray teaches a structural facility comprising:
an existing roof 10;
hardware (40, 70) secured to the existing roof (Figs. 1-4, 8 and 10-11);
a new roof 80 matchingly secured to the existing roof with hardware (note that the new roof matches the contour of the old roof through use of the hardware; Figs. 1-4, 8 and 10-11); and
at least one insulation material 78 positioned in a climate space between the existing roof and the new roofs ([0038]; Fig. 3), the climate space of an architecture to promote one of retaining air to maintain a higher temperature therein (not required by the claim due to recitation of “one of”) and circulating air out of the climate space to reduce temperature therein (via ridge vent 76; [0038]; Fig. 3).
Ray does not teach the insulation material comprising a phase change material assembly.
However, Jablonka teaches a structural facility comprising a roof system (Fig. 8) comprising at least one phase change material assembly 58 installed within corrugations on a roof (Fig. 8). Jablonka teaches the roof system of the structural facility causing a lowering of temperature inside the structural facility during a period of warm weather, while releasing heat when cool night temperatures prevail, so that a balanced climate is brought about in the structural facility [0028]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the insulation material of the roof system of the structural facility by incorporating a phase change material assembly, with the reasonable expectation of success of further balancing the difference between an outside temperature and an interior temperature in the structural facility (Jablonka [0031]).
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane (US 9027286) in view of Jablonka et al. (US 20060099361) (‘Jablonka’) and further in view of Alderman (US 6645598).
Claim 7, the combination of Lane and Jablonka teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as above, but is silent as to the reflective layer being aluminum foil. However, Alderman teaches a phase change material assembly comprising a phase change material, and a reflective layer that can comprise a metalized plastic sheet material (col. 2, lines 57-59) comprising aluminum foil (col. 3, lines 40-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the reflective layer comprising a aluminum foil, with the reasonable expectation of success of utilizing a known and readily available material, with the reasonable expectation of success of forming the outer layer of the phase change material assembly of the known material that both acts as a reflective layer during periods of warm weather and as an insulator during periods of cool weather to balance the indoor climate in the structural facility, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim 15, the combination of Lane and Jablonka teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as above, but is silent as to introducing one of a foam and a fiber insulation material to the climate space with the phase change material assembly. However, Alderman teaches a method comprising introducing one of a foam and a fiber insulation material to the climate space with a phase change material assembly (Alderman fiberglass layer shown in Fig. 8; PCM 10; col. 7, lines 16-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to introduce one of a foam and a fiber insulation material to the climate space with the phase change material assembly, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known combination of materials to insulate interior space in the structural facility, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane (US 9027286) in view of Jablonka et al. (US 20060099361) (‘Jablonka’) and further in view of Alderman (US 20180355606).
Claim 11, as modified above, the combination of Lane and Jablonka teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches wherein the facility is a storage unit (note that the building structure on which Lane’s and or Jablonka’s roof is installed would nonetheless be expected to be capable of storage and thus constitutes a storage unit, as exceedingly broadly claimed), but is silent as to the facility being absent any air conditioning system. However, Alderman teaches a structural facility, wherein the structural facility is a storage unit absent any air conditioning system ([0018], [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the structural facility as a storage unit absent any air conditioning system, with the reasonable expectation of storing items in the structural facility while reducing operating and maintenance costs associated with air conditioning systems.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray (US 20110016803) in view of Jablonka et al. (US 20060099361) (‘Jablonka’) and further in view of Alderman (US 20180355606).
Claim 11, as modified above, the combination of Ray and Jablonka teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches wherein the facility is a storage unit (note that the building structure on which Ray’s and or Jablonka’s roof is installed would nonetheless be expected to be capable of storage and thus constitutes a storage unit, as exceedingly broadly claimed), but is silent as to the facility being absent any air conditioning system. However, Alderman teaches a structural facility, wherein the structural facility is a storage unit absent any air conditioning system ([0018], [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the structural facility as a storage unit absent any air conditioning system, with the reasonable expectation of storing items in the structural facility while reducing operating and maintenance costs associated with air conditioning systems.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray (US 20110016803) in view of Jablonka et al. (US 20060099361) (‘Jablonka’) and further in view of Frost (US 5158502).
Claims 12-13, Ray and Jablonka teach all the limitations of claim 10 as above, and further teaches a vent comprising a ridge vent (Ray 76). Ray does not teach [claim 12] a reversible vent for the retaining when in a closed position and for the circulating when in an open position, and [claim 13] wherein the vent is a ridge vent and the higher elevation point opening is at a peak elevation of the structural facility, the peak elevation at one of a central location of the roofs and at a sidewall of the facility. However, Frost teaches a structural facility comprising a roof ridge vent system, comprising a reversible vent 10 for retaining when in a closed position and for circulating when in an open position (col. 1, lines 49-64; col. 4, lines 33-36), wherein the vent is a ridge vent (Figs. 1-2) and the higher elevation point opening is at a peak elevation of the structural facility (Figs. 1-2), the peak elevation at one of a central location of the roofs and at a sidewall of the facility (Figs. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the ridge vent comprising a reversible vent for the retaining when in a closed position and for the circulating when in an open position, wherein the higher elevation point opening is at a peak elevation of the structural facility, the peak elevation at one of a central location of the roofs and at a sidewall of the facility, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to further moderate the space inside the structural facility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635