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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0027] recites, “a network 105”. The identifier 105 had previously been used for “processing module” and “network” had previously been assigned identifier 13.
Paragraph [0038] recites a “pair of modes”. It appears this should be “pair of molds”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites an “intermediate mode” but it appears the claim intended to recite an “intermediate mold”.
Claim 8 is objected to for erroneous use of quotation marks.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, “includes a temperate range”. It appears the limitation is supposed to be “includes a temperature range”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
584
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 102279226 B1).
As to claim 11, Lee teaches a method for manufacturing multiple sandwich panels (Manufacturing Apparatus For Sandwich Panel With Hot Press (Title)), comprising: (Examiner notes the following method steps are not required to be performed in any particular order. The rejection below is premised on the steps of forming two distinct sandwich panels 400 from two sets of plates 410, 420, and two cores 430. By forming the two sandwich panels, and placing those sandwich panels in the press 300, each of the limitations below are met, albeit in a different order than as written) positioning a first flat portion on a bottom mold (first panel 410 is positioned adjacent to compression block 310 after being formed into a sandwich panel 400 as shown in Figure 1); forming a first sealant pattern on the first flat portion (adhesive (interpreted here as sealant) is applied to the panel 410 by the first unit 100); positioning a first insulation layer on the first flat portion (core material 430 is an insulation layer which is applied to first layer 410
PNG
media_image2.png
452
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
to form the sandwich panel 400 as shown in Fig 1); forming a second sealant pattern on the first insulation layer; positioning a second flat portion on the first insulation layer (the second panel 420 has adhesive applied to it by unit 100, and then is applied to the core material 430 opposite the first panel 410. This step also applies the adhesive to the core material 430 on the side opposite the first panel 410); positioning an intermediate mold on the second flat portion (an intermediate compression block 310 as shown in Fig 3); positioning a third flat portion on the intermediate mold (a second sandwich panel 400 is placed above the compression block 310); forming a third sealant pattern on the third flat portion (this is a step in the formation of the second sandwich panel 400. The first flat portion is a second first panel 410 which is applied with adhesive by the first unit 100); positioning a second insulation layer on the third flat portion (a second core 430 is applied to the second first panel 410 during the creation of a second sandwich panel 400); forming a fourth sealant pattern on the second insulation layer; positioning a fourth flat portion on the second insulation layer (the second second panel 420 is applied to the second core 430. As adhesive was applied to the second second panel 420, adhesive is thus applied to the second core 430); positioning a top mold on the fourth flat portion (an upper compression block 310 as shown in Fig 3); and pressing the top mold toward the bottom mold under a predetermined temperature profile during a predetermined time period (actuator presses on the sandwich panels 400 between compression blocks 310. The pressing occurs for a length of time at a particular temperature.).
As to claim 12, Lee teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the first sealant pattern and the second sealant pattern are vertically aligned (it appears that Lee intends for the entire surface of the panels 410 to be applied with adhesive. Thus, as the area of each of the panels 410, 420, and core 430, are the same, the pattern of adhesive are vertically aligned.).
As to claim 13, Lee teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the first sealant pattern and the third sealant pattern are vertically aligned (it appears that Lee intends for the entire surface of the panels 410 to be applied with adhesive. Thus, as the area of each of the panels 410, 420, and core 430, are the same, the pattern of adhesive are vertically aligned.).
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.
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.
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
As to claim 14, Lee teaches the method of claim 11, but does not teach the predetermined temperature profile includes a temperate range from 40 degrees Celsius to 50 degrees Celsius.
Instead, Lee teaches the pressing is performed with heat, but does not give a specific temperature.
Likewise, as to claim 15, Lee teaches the method of claim 11, but does not teach the predetermined time period ranges from 3 hours to 5 hours.
Instead, Lee teaches the pressing is performed , but does not give a time period.
However, in the manufacturing field, it was widely understood that items subjected to heating should be subjected to that heating at a particular temperature and for a particular length of time.
Given the knowledge regarding heating at particular temperatures and for particular time periods, any reasonable amount of time at any reasonable temperature would have been considered obvious to try to an artisan having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. See MPEP § 2143 E. Examiner recognizes that time and temperature are not specifically “finite,” however, as noted above, the ubiquity of the operation performed by artisans would have led an interested artisan to try any reasonable combination of time and temperature, including the claimed temperature of 40 to 50 degrees C and time of 3 to 5 hours.
As to claims 16-19, Lee teaches the method of claim 11, but does not teach the first predetermined pattern includes sealant lines in parallel with one another; or wherein the first predetermined pattern includes sealant lines perpendicular to one another; or wherein the first predetermined pattern includes curved sealant lines; or wherein the first predetermined pattern includes diagonal sealant lines.
Instead, Lee teaches the application of adhesive (interpreted here as sealant) but not in a particular pattern.
However, the pattern (whether parallel, perpendicular, curved, or diagonal) appears to be a mere design choice.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the pattern of any of these choices solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the adhesive of Lee, or applicant’s invention, would perform equally well with any reasonable pattern.
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Lee such that the pattern of adhesive (sealant) is one of parallel, perpendicular, curved, or diagonal because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Lee.
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 102279226 B1) in view of Yun (KR. 20110075484 A).
As to claim 1, Lee teaches a system for manufacturing multiple sandwich panels (Manufacturing Apparatus For Sandwich Panel With Hot Press (Title)), comprising: a control unit (Lee teaches several control units: a first discharge control unit 130, a second discharge control unit 140 and a suction transfer unit which “controls the movement of each of the plurality of movable arms 530…” (Page 8 line 13)); an environmental management module configured to control and management environmental factors during the surface treatment process and a pressing process (This limitation invokes 112(f). See Specification [0034]. The module is a heater, for example. Lee teaches a first unit 100 comprises a heater. A heater is useful for controlling the environmental factor of temperature. Lee also teaches a second unit 200 sucks and discharges dust. A dust extractor is useful for controlling the environmental factor of air quality.); a sealant module configured to apply sealants in sealant patterns on surfaces of flat portions of the rolled material and insulation layers (This limitation invokes 112(f). The sealant module 109 is a sealant dispenser. Lee Page 4 lines 1-2: “the first unit 100 applies a predetermined amount of adhesive to the first panel 410 and the second panel 420”); and a pressing module (third unit 300 includes compression block 310 as shown in Fig 3, below.) including a top mold (topmost block 310), an intermediate mold (any intermediate block 310), a bottom mold (lowest-most block 310) and configured to press multiple pairs of the flat portions and insulation layers so to form multiple sandwich panels in the pressing process (Page 6 lines 26-28: “The compression block 310 forms the hot press unit 301 , and is vertically spaced apart from each other so that a plurality of sandwich panels 400 having the same or different thicknesses are mounted thereon to form a plurality of layers.” The sandwich panels are formed of flat layer 410, a core insulating layer 430, and a flat layer 420.).
PNG
media_image2.png
452
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee does not teach a surface processing module configured to prepare a rolled material by at least one surface treatment process.
Rather, Lee begins the process with panels 410, 420, but does not discuss how the panels are manufactured.
However, in the field of sandwich panel manufacturing, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for manufacturing flat panels from coiled rolls. Moreover, it was known to surface process that rolled material by a surface treatment process. See Yun which teaches plate members 11, 12 begin in coils 33, 34 respectively. The members 11, 12 then undergo a roll forming treatment by forming rolls 48 in order to be flattened from their rolled state.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have performed the roll forming of Yun before the sandwich panel manufacturing steps of Lee. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure the plates are flat, ensuring proper formation of the sandwich panels. See also MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image3.png
632
274
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Lee in view of Yun teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the intermediate mode [sic, mold] include an upper mold and a lower mold (as shown in Lee Fig 3, the top of one block 310 is a bottom mold, and the bottom of its upper neighbor is a top mold).
As to claim 3, Lee in view of Yun teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the sealant patterns are formed in recesses on the insulation layers (Lee Page 4 lines 8-9 teaches, “Here, the core 430 is a part that serves as a heat insulator, and various types of heat insulators such as glass wool, mineral wool, PF board, urethane, EPS insulation, etc. may be used.” Thus, as the insulating materials are known to have surface roughness, the valleys between the peaks of a surface roughness are considered the recesses. Lee teaches adhesive is applied to core 430 via the panels 410, 420. Thus, the adhesive (interpreted here to be sealant) is applied to recesses on the insulation layer).
As to claim 4, Lee in view of Yun teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the multiple sandwich panels include six sandwich panels (this is an intended use of the system of Lee in view of Yun. . Lee teaches 4 panels are created at the same time in the press shown in Fig 3. However, there is no requirement that six sandwich panels are created at the same time. It appears that Lee in view of Yun would be able to produce any number of panels in batches of four, so long as the required inputs are supplied.).
As to claim 9, Lee in view of Yun teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the top mold, the intermediate mold, the bottom mold includes a surface formed by a laser carving process (this is a product-by-process limitation. See MPEP § 2113. The surface of the blocks 310 is capable of being made by any reasonable operation, including a laser carving process).
As to claim 10, Lee in view of Yun teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the pressing module further includes a power module configured to apply a force on the top mold and the bottom mold (Lee teaches actuator 312 presses down on sandwich panels between blocks 310.).
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 102279226 B1) in view of Yun (KR. 20110075484 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwartau (WO 2009/125289 A2).
As to claim 5, Lee in view of Yun teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach at least one of the multiple sandwich panels includes an opening.
Rather, the specific shape of the panels are not discussed. However, the shape of sandwich panels was well known in the art to be any reasonable shape, including having openings. See Schwartau which teaches panel 11, 12 as shown for example in Fig 1. Schwartau teaches the panels have openings 23, 24 “for installing windows, doors, and the like” (Page 6 line 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for openings in the panel created by Lee in view of Yun. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to include windows or doors or the like in the panels.
As to claim 7, Lee in view of Yun and Schwartau teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the at least one of the multiple sandwich panels having the opening is configured to be a side panel of a statable trailer system (Examiner’s interpretation of “statable trailer system” is a system capable of being both used as a trailer and capable of being folded to fit within a larger vehicle. Schwartau teaches at the Summary on Page 1: “The present invention provides an alternative to conventional construction materials and techniques. Structures, for example, buildings, houses, commercial buildings, warehouses, recreational vehicle (RV) trailers, mobile homes, manufactured homes, and modular homes, etc., can be constructed by composite sandwich panels.” At least one of the described structures meets the limitations of a statable trailer system.).
As to claim 8, Lee in view of Yun teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach at least one of the multiple sandwich panels includes a dimension of “40 feet x 10 feet x 2 inches.”
Rather, the particular dimensions of the sandwich panels created in the methods of Lee and Yun are not discussed. However, Schwartau also teaches methods of forming sandwich panels and teaches at page 7 lines 32-34: “The sandwich panels may be any shape. In one embodiment, the sandwich panels are rectangular in shape and may be several meters, or more, in height and width. The sandwich panels also may be other shapes and sizes.” Thus it appears that any reasonable size and shape of sandwich panel was understood by an artisan having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. Moreover, as shown in Fig 1, the sandwich panels were understood to have the length and height commensurate in size with a house.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the sandwich panel be these specific measurements solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the panels of Lee in view of Yun and Schwartau, or applicant’s invention, would perform equally well at any reasonable size in view of the expected end product.
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Schwartau such the size of the panels are 40 feet x10 feet x 2 inches because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Lee in view of Yun and Schwartau.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 102279226 B1) in view of Yun (KR. 20110075484 A) and Schwartau (WO 2009/125289 A2) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Chang (CN 109591434 A).
As to claim 6, Lee in view of Yun and Schwartau teaches the system of claim 5, but does not teach at least one of the sealant patterns are formed in accordance with the opening.
Rather, Schwartau teaches the openings are formed after the sandwich panel has been glued, and does not specify whether the glue is applied in any way “in accordance” with the openings 23, 24.
However, in the manufacture of sandwich panels, it was well known at the time the invention was effectively filed to apply sealant with an understanding of the end geometry of the panel. See Chang which teaches a sealant is applied to edge of the final shape of a panel, not merely to the entire surface of a panel. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have applied at least one of the sealant patterns in accordance with the opening. By applying sealant to the perimeter of an opening, the opening is ensured to be sealed when later cut away. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure the opening is adequately sealed in the manner described by Chang. The step of applying sealant to a perimeter of a portion of the panel intended to be cut away, the sealant is applied “in accordance” with that opening.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 102279226 B1) in view of Yun (KR. 20110075484 A), Borazghi (US 7429305 B2).
As to claim 20, Lee teaches a system for manufacture multiple sandwich panels (Manufacturing Apparatus For Sandwich Panel With Hot Press (Title)), comprising: an environmental management module configured to control and management environmental factors during the surface treatment process and a pressing process (This limitation invokes 112(f). See Specification [0034]. The module is a heater, for example. Lee teaches a first unit 100 comprises a heater. A heater is useful for controlling the environmental factor of temperature. Lee also teaches a second unit 200 sucks and discharges dust. A dust extractor is useful for controlling the environmental factor of air quality.); a sealant module configured to apply sealants in sealant patterns on surfaces of flat portions of the rolled material and insulation layers (This limitation invokes 112(f). The sealant module 109 is a sealant dispenser. Lee Page 4 lines 1-2: “the first unit 100 applies a predetermined amount of adhesive to the first panel 410 and the second panel 420”); a pressing module (third unit 300 includes compression block 310 as shown in Fig 3) including a top mold (topmost block 310), an intermediate mold (any intermediate block 310), a bottom mold (lowest-most block 310) and configured to press multiple pairs of the flat portions and insulation layers so to form multiple sandwich panels in the pressing process (Page 6 lines 26-28: “The compression block 310 forms the hot press unit 301 , and is vertically spaced apart from each other so that a plurality of sandwich panels 400 having the same or different thicknesses are mounted thereon to form a plurality of layers.” The sandwich panels are formed of flat layer 410, a core insulating layer 430, and a flat layer 420.).
Lee does not teach a surface processing module configured to prepare a rolled material by at least one surface treatment process.
Rather, Lee begins the process with panels 410, 420, but does not discuss how the panels are manufactured.
However, in the field of sandwich panel manufacturing, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for manufacturing flat panels from coiled rolls. Moreover, it was known to surface process that rolled material by a surface treatment process. See Yun which teaches plate members 11, 12 begin in coils 33, 34 respectively. The members 11, 12 then undergo a roll forming treatment by forming rolls 48 in order to be flattened from their rolled state.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have performed the roll forming of Yun before the sandwich panel manufacturing steps of Lee. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure the plates are flat, ensuring proper formation of the sandwich panels. See also MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Lee in view of Yun does not teach: a control unit; a memory; wherein the at least one surface treatment process and the pressing process are monitored and controlled by the control unit; and wherein the sealant patterns are formed in accordance with a predetermined pattern stored in the memory.
Rather, while Lee teaches a naïve controller, Lee’s controller is not useful for controlling the surface treatment and pressing processes, nor are the sealant patterns stored in memory.
However, controlling each of the processes in a sandwich panel manufacturing process by a computer controller was well known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Borazghi which teaches a sandwich panel manufacturing process. Borazghi teaches at Col 3 lines 14-16: “The temperature of the oven, of the heated rollers, and the feed speed of the sheet are all controlled by a computer controller.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided the control unit and memory of Borazghi for the manufacturing device of Lee in view of Yun. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to control each of the components by computer, which increases reliability, timing, and controllability of the components above manual control, for example.
Examiner takes official notice that computer controllers have memory.
As to the limitation, “and wherein the sealant patterns are formed in accordance with a predetermined pattern stored in the memory,” this is functional language which attempts to limit the product claim by the way in which the product operates. The adhesive application of Lee is inherently in a pattern, even if that pattern is to apply adhesive to the entire surface of the sheet. Thus, the pattern is stored in memory. The device which applies Lee’s adhesive is therefore capable of applying adhesive in accordance with a predetermined pattern stored in the memory.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 26 November 2025