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 .
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a sheet connection mechanism” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldberg (US 2008/0001128).
Regarding claim 1, Goldberg teaches a fire barrier system (1, par. 2, fig. 1) comprises: a fire-resisting sheet (1, par. 30) comprising a fire-resisting layer (6) and a support layer (5), wherein the fire-resisting layer comprises mineral wool (par. 34), and a support structure (2) adapted to support the fire-resisting sheet above the ground (fig. 1), wherein the fire barrier system can be positioned in proximity to a fire to help prevent the spread of the fire across the fire barrier system (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Goldberg teaches the fire barrier system described regarding claim 1 and further wherein the support structure is adapted to support the fire-resisting sheet at least 18 inches above the ground (fig. 1 – the sheet is supported from the shaft, which may be mounted to support the sheet at any height above the ground).
Regarding claim 8, Goldberg teaches the fire barrier system described regarding claim 1 and further wherein the fire-resisting sheet comprises a third layer (7), the third layer comprising a fabric (par. 44).
Claims 12-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson (US 2021/0123260).
Regarding claim 12, Thompson teaches a fire barrier system (1000) comprises: a first fire-resisting sheet comprising a fire-resisting material (1000A), a second fire-resisting sheet comprising a fire-resisting material (1000B), and a sheet connection mechanism (1900/1920) adapted to connect the first fire-resisting sheet to the second fire-resisting sheet to extend the length or height of the fire barrier system (par. 25, 26; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Thompson teaches the fire-barrier system described regarding claim 12, and further wherein the sheet connection mechanism comprises an extending portion (1900/1920) of the first sheet that extends beyond the fire-resisting material of the first sheet (fig. 1), wherein the extending portion contains a first fastening member (par. 25 – “tab”), wherein the second fire-resisting sheet comprises a second fastening member (par. 25 – “recess”), and wherein the first fastening member can engage a second fastening member to connect the first fire-resisting sheet to the second fire- resisting sheet in a manner that maintains fire barrier properties of the system (par. 25, 26; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Thompson teaches the fire-barrier system described regarding claim 12, and further wherein the sheet connecting mechanism comprises a horizontal connecting mechanism and a vertical connecting mechanism (figs., 1, 2 – tabs and recesses secure the first sheet to the second sheet both vertically and horizontally).
Regarding claim 18, Thompson teaches a method of creating a fire barrier between a fire and an area to be protected from the fire (par. 26; fig. 2), the method comprising: supporting a fire-resisting sheet (1100/1200) above the ground at a location between the fire and the area to be protected from the fire (fig. 2), the fire resisting sheet comprising a fire-resisting material (par. 29).
Regarding claim 19, Thompson teaches the fire-barrier system described regarding claim 18, and further wherein the fire-resisting sheet is supported at a location in proximity to a fire break line (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Thompson teaches the fire-barrier system described regarding claim 18, and further comprising connecting the fire-resisting sheet to another fire-resisting sheet to extend the length or height of the fire barrier (fig. 2; par. 25).
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Goldberg.
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses a fire barrier system (1000) comprises: a fire-resisting sheet (1100, par. 30) comprising a fire-resisting layer (par. 29) and a support layer (1600), and a support structure (1300/1800) adapted to support the fire-resisting sheet above the ground (fig. 1), wherein the fire barrier system can be positioned in proximity to a fire to help prevent the spread of the fire across the fire barrier system (fig. 2). Thompson does not explicitly disclose wherein the fire-resisting layer comprises mineral wool..
Goldberg teaches the fire barrier system described regarding claim 1, specifically wherein the fire-resisting material comprises mineral wool.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire-barrier system of Thompson such that the fire-resisting material comprises mineral wool, as taught by Goldberg, since this was known to be a good insulating material to prevent the heat from a fire from passing through.
Regarding claim 3, Thompson in view of Goldberg discloses the system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the support structure comprises one or more vertical support members (1800) each comprising a connecting portion (fig. 1 – portion of stake 1800 in hinge 1300) and an anchoring portion (1810).
Regarding claim 4, Thompson in view of Goldberg discloses the system described regarding claim 3, and further wherein the anchoring portion comprises a stake adapted to be inserted into the ground (par. 26).
Regarding claim 8, Thompson in view of Goldberg discloses the system described regarding claim 1, and Goldberg further teaches wherein the fire-resisting sheet comprises a third layer (7), the third layer comprising a fabric (par. 44). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the fire-resisting sheet of Thompson to include a third layer cpomprising a fabric since this was known to provide additional heat insulating capability (Goldberg, par. 42).
Regarding claim 9, Thompson in view of Goldberg discloses the system described regarding claim 1, and further teaches wherein the fabric comprises polyethylene terephthalate (par. 21).
Regarding claim 11, Thompson in view of Goldberg discloses the system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the fire resisting sheet comprises a sheet connecting mechanism (1900/1920) adapted to connect the fire-resisting sheet to a second fire-resisting sheet (par. 25), the sheet connecting mechanism comprising an extending portion of the fire-resisting sheet that extends beyond the fire-resisting layer (fig. 1), the extending portion comprising a fastening member (par. 25 – “tab”) adapted to connect to the second fire-resisting sheet (par. 25 – “recess”) in a manner that maintains fire barrier properties of the system (par. 25, 26; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Thompson discloses the fire-barrier system described regarding claim 12, but not further wherein the fire-resisting material comprises mineral wool.
Goldberg teaches the fire barrier system described regarding claim 1, specifically wherein the fire-resisting material comprises mineral wool.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire-barrier system of Thompson such that the fire-resisting material comprises mineral wool, as taught by Goldberg, since this was known to be a good insulating material to prevent the heat from a fire from passing through.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg in view of Liu et al. (US 5,968,669).
Regarding claim 5, Goldberg discloses the system described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the fire-resisting layer further comprises a wetting agent.
Liu teaches a fire-retardant coating comprising a wetting agent (col. 4, ln. 39-46).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire-barrier system of Goldberg to further include a wetting agent, as taught by Liu, since this was known to provide additional fire protection.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg in view of Margolin (US 2015/0306435).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Goldberg discloses the system described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the support layer comprises a para-aramid or a meta-aramid.
Margolin teaches a fire barrier system (100) comprising a support layer (235/240) that comprises both a para-aramid and a meta-aramid (par. 48 – Kevlar, Nomex).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire-barrier system of Goldberg to further include both a para-aramid and a meta-aramid as the support layer, as taught by Margolin, since these materials were known to be fireproof and abrasion resistant (Margolin, par. 48).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg in view of Hanna (US 2011/0027500).
Regarding claim 10, Goldberg discloses the system described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the fire-resisting sheet comprises a wire layer.
Hanna teaches a fire barrier system (2) comprising a fire-resisting sheet comprising a wire layer (10, see fig. 2)).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire-barrier system of Goldberg to further include a wire layer in the fire-resisting sheet, as taught by Hanna, since this was known to help secure the inner layers (Hanna, par. 36).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Dorel (US 2017/0021208).
Regarding claim 15, Thompson discloses the system described regarding claim 12, but not further wherein the fire-resisting material passes the ASTM vertical flame test.
Dorel teaches a fire barrier system (par. 2; fig. 1) comprising a fire-resisting material that must pass the ASTM vertical flame test (par. 6).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire-barrier system of Thompson such that the fire-resisting material passes the ASTM vertical flame test, as taught by Dorel, since this would provide assurance that the material meets a known standard for flammability resistance, which would be required by governing bodies and insurance companies.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Margolin (US 2015/0306435).
Regarding claim 17, Thompson discloses the system described regarding claim 12, but not further wherein the first fire resisting sheet further comprises a para-aramid or a meta-aramid.
Margolin teaches a fire barrier system (100) comprising a support layer (235/240) that comprises both a para-aramid and a meta-aramid (par. 48 – Kevlar, Nomex).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire-barrier system of Thompson to further include a para-aramid or a meta-aramid as the first fire resisting sheet, as taught by Margolin, since these materials were known to be fireproof and abrasion resistant (Margolin, par. 48).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rogers et al. (US 2004/0074152), Ortiz (US 2009/0194297), Paull et al. (US 2020/0147423), and Castelo (US 2020/0368564) all teach fire barrier systems having elements of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752