CTNF 18/401,580 CTNF 93470 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of Application Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 07/01/2024 has been considered by the Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2, 8-11 & 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Number 11,007,547 B1 to Begis in view of US Patent Publication Number 2004/0175163 A1 to Fukai . A) As per Claims 1-2 & 11, Begis teaches a portable structure comprising: a plurality of panels defining an enclosed space (Begis: Figure 1). Begis does not teach one or more panels of the plurality of panels comprise a laminate including: one or more heating elements, comprises one or more resistive heating elements bonded between the first and second heat distribution layers; first and second heat distribution layers bonded to one another having the one or more heating elements positioned therebetween; and inner and outer layers, the first and second heat distribution layers being positioned between the inner and outer layers, the first and second heat distribution layers having a higher melting temperature than the inner and outer layers. However, Fukai teaches one or more panels of the plurality of panels comprise a laminate including: one or more heating elements, comprises one or more resistive heating elements bonded between the first and second heat distribution layers (Fukai: Figure 10, item 66); first and second heat distribution layers bonded to one another having the one or more heating elements positioned therebetween (Fukai: Figure 10, Paragraph 0116); and inner and outer layers, the first and second heat distribution layers being positioned between the inner and outer layers, the first and second heat distribution layers having a higher melting temperature than the inner and outer layers (Fukai: Figure 10, Paragraph 0116). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Begis by having a laminate heating panel, as taught by Fukai, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Begis with these aforementioned teachings of Fukai with the motivation of providing flexible heating panels for the enclosure. B) As per Claims 8 & 18, Begis in view of Fukai teaches that the plurality of panels form a paint booth including an inlet port coupled to a blower and an exhaust port (Begis: Figure 1). C) As per Claims 9 & 19, Begis in view of Fukai teaches that the one or more panels include a peaked roof (Begis: Figure 1). D) As per Claims 10 & 20, Begis in view of Fukai teaches that the one or more heating elements are configured to melt snow incident on the peaked roof (The Examiner notes that the panels of Fukai would certainly be capable of melting snow on the roof of Begis) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 & 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begis in view of Fukai as applied to claim s 1 or 11 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2021/0025555 A1 to Pereira Gonzalez . A) As per Claims 3 & 12-13, Begis in view of Fukai teaches all the limitations except that a light source (LED) secured to the inner layer of the laminate of the one or more panels. However, Pereira Gonzalez teaches a light source (LED) secured to the inner layer of the laminate of the one or more panels (Pereira Gonzalez: Abstract). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Begis in view of Fukai by adding an LED light source to the interior panel, as taught by Pereira Gonzalez, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Begis in view of Fukai with these aforementioned teachings of Pereira Gonzalez with the motivation of providing light within the enclosure . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 4-5 & 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begis in view of Fukai as applied to claim s 1 or 11 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2015/0136751 A1 to Hanschke . A) As per Claims 4 & 14, Begis in view of Fukai teaches all the limitations except a temperature sensor secured to the laminate; and a controller coupled to the temperature sensor and configured to activate the one or more heating elements when a temperature detected by the temperature sensor falls below a threshold. However, Hanschke teaches a temperature sensor secured to the laminate; and a controller coupled to the temperature sensor and configured to activate the one or more heating elements when a temperature detected by the temperature sensor falls below a threshold (Hanschke: Paragraph 0042). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Begis in view of Fukai by adding a temperature sensor and controller, as taught by Hanschke, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Begis in view of Fukai with these aforementioned teachings of Hanschke with the motivation of saving energy when the heating is not necessary. B) As per Claims 5 & 15, Begis in view of Fukai and Hanschke teaches all the limitations except that the threshold is below 5 degrees Celsius. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the threshold below 5 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (a threshold to control the heater), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art. In addition, it is observed that heating threshold is a result effective variable because the lower the threshold, the less energy used, but the colder the space will feel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the threshold below 5 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 6-7 & 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begis in view of Fukai as applied to claim s 1 or 11 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2004/0103684 A1 to Kreutzmann . A) As per Claims 6 & 16, Begis in view of Fukai teaches all the limitations except that the laminate further comprises a reflective layer secured to the outer layer. However, Kreutzmann teaches the laminate further comprises a reflective layer secured to the outer layer (Kreutzmann: Claim 16). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Begis in view of Fukai by adding a reflective layer, as taught by Kreutzmann, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Begis in view of Fukai with these aforementioned teachings of Kreutzmann with the motivation of providing further insulative value to the panels. B) As per Claims 7 & 17, Begis in view of Fukai and Kreutzmann teaches that the reflective layer is aluminized mylar (Kreutzmann: Claim 16). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, STEVE MCALLISTER can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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. /Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/401,580 Page 2 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/401,580 Page 3 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/401,580 Page 4 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/401,580 Page 5 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/401,580 Page 6 Art Unit: 3762