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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because parts given a number are not shown in the drawings. As per PCT rule 11.13L, “Reference signs not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings, and vice versa.” Hence, the attachment system 30, elastic 32, hooks 34 of paragraph 0031 all must be shown in the drawings.
The drawings are also objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the elastic band and hook of claims 20 and 22 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Second sentence of paragraph 0008 is incomplete.
Second sentence of paragraph 0010, “fine” should be “define”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
“holt-melted” should be “hot-melted”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 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 8 is incomplete, and thus indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution the claim is read as “The ventilation conduit section of claim 1, the layer of the second material having a sinusoidal pattern having a second amplitude.”
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 1-5,8,10,13,15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa (JPH0317105Y2), hereafter known as Kurokawa, in view of Buettner (EP 2019242 A2 ), hereafter known as Buettner, and Hon&Guan’s product on Amazon, “Dryer Vent Hose, 4'' Flexible Duct 16FT with 2 Duct Clamps, Heavy-Duty Three Layer Protection for HVAC Ventilation, Duct Fan Systems”, hereafter known as Hon.
Regarding claim 1, Kurokawa discloses a ventilation conduit section (description, paragraph 1, Kurokawa), the section comprising:
a plurality of layers stacked on top of one another (only one layer is disclosed, Kurokawa), the layers being made of a first material (claim 1, duct of Kurokawa is metal); and
a layer being made of a second material having anti-corrosion properties covering the plurality of layers of the first material (not disclosed),
wherein the plurality of layers define a longitudinal region having a periodic pattern along a length (figs 2 and 4, duct has periodic wave pattern, but only one layer, Kurokawa),
the plurality of layers define a hooking region in which the plurality of layers are bent in a hook configuration (figs 2 and 4, hooking region 1, the layer is bent to a hook shape, but only one layer, Kurokawa), the hooking region located at an end of the longitudinal region and configured to be secured to another hooking region of another ventilation conduit section (figs 2 and 4, hooking regions of the lift and right sections of duct are secured together at 1 to connect the two sections, Kurokawa).
Kurokawa does not disclose a plurality of layers stacked together, nor a layer of a second material with anti-corrosion properties covering the plurality of layers of the first material. However, Buettner teaches an inner periodic layer in addition to an outer periodic layer (fig 6, page 7, paragraph 1, Buettner). Buettner describes a corrugated duct, a field closely related to Kurokawa and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Buettner into Kurokawa and added an inner periodic layer to the duct of Kurokawa of the same material as the outer layer. The inner layer would reduce the flow resistance of the air passing through the duct (page 6 paragraph 5 and page 7, paragraph 1, Buettner).
Kurokawa in view of Buettner does not disclose layer of a second material with anti-corrosion properties covering the plurality of layers of the first material. However, Hon teaches a layer of a second with anti-corrosion properties covering the plurality of layers of first material (second product image, vent hose, which contains two layers of aluminum foil, as seen in -0:05 of product video, is covered in a layer of PVC, which has anti-corrosion properties by nature, Hon). Hon describes a corrugated duct, a field closely related to Kurokawa, Buettner, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Hon into Kurokawa in view of Buettner and added the outer PVC coating of Hon to the outside of the duct of Kurokawa in view of Buettner. In addition to the anti-corrosion benefits, the PVC layer also prevents light leaks and puncture holes (second product image, Hon).
Regarding claim 2, Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon discloses the ventilation conduit section of claim 1, the periodic pattern of the longitudinal region being a sinusoidal pattern having a first amplitude (figs 2 and 4 Kurokawa, the duct has a periodic sinusoidal pattern with an amplitude).
Regarding claim 3, Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon discloses the ventilation conduit section of claim 1, the plurality of layers further defining two periodic layers (Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon has the outer periodic layer from figs 2 and 4 of Kurokawa with the inner periodic layer in view of fig 6 Buettner), the two periodic layers each comprising at least one layer of the plurality of layers (the two periodic layers are both made of metal and are part of a plurality of layers) and each defining a periodic pattern along the length of the longitudinal region, the periodic pattern of a first of the two periodic layers having a smaller amplitude than the amplitude of a second of the two periodic layers (both periodic layers are sinusoidal as per fig 2 of Kurokawa and fig 6 Buettner, with the inner periodic layer in view of Buettner being smaller in amplitude than the outer layer of Kurokawa, at less than 1/5 of the amplitude, page 7, paragraph 1, Buettner).
Regarding claim 4, Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon discloses the ventilation conduit section of claim 3, the two periodic layers being in connection with one another at the lowest point of their respective period only (fig 6 Buettner, the two periodic layers are in contact only at their lowest points of their periods).
Regarding claim 5, Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon discloses the ventilation conduit section of claim 1, the plurality of layers bending inwardly so that an end of the plurality of layers faces towards the longitudinal region (fig 2 and 4 of Kurokawa, the ends of layer 2 bend inward at 1 to face towards itself. When modified with Buettner and Hon, the inner periodic layer of Buettner also bends inwardly at 1).
Regarding claim 8, Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon discloses the ventilation conduit section of claim 1, the layer of the second material having a sinusoidal pattern having a second amplitude (second product image, Hon, the foil layer of the vent hose is covered in a layer of PVC, which follows the shape of the foil layer and thus has a sinusoidal pattern with a second amplitude of its own. When applied to Kurokawa in view of Buettner, the PVC layer follows the contours of the outer layer of duct and has a sinusoidal pattern with a second amplitude of its own as well.)
Regarding claim 10, Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon discloses the ventilation conduit section of claim 1, the second material being a polymer-based material (second product image Hon, the second material is PVC, which is a polymer)
Regarding claim 13, Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon discloses the ventilation conduit section of claim 1, the plurality of layers being coated with an anti-corrosion coating (second product image, layer of PVC, which has anti-corrosion properties by nature, Hon.)
Regarding claim 15, Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon discloses The ventilation conduit section of claim 1, the bent configuration of the hooking region providing sealing between the ventilation conduit section and another ventilation conduit section (figs 2 and 4 Kurokawa, the bent portions at 1 seal adjacent ventilation conduit sections together).
Regarding claim 16, Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon discloses the ventilation conduit section of claim 1, the plurality of layers further defining a second hooking region (figs 2-4, Kurokawa, section of duct has hooking regions on both ends, a first on one end and a second on the other) in which the plurality of layers are bent in a hook configuration (figs 2 and 4, Kurokawa, the duct is bent into a hook configuration at 1. When modified with Buettner and Hon, the inner periodic layer of Buettner also bends inwardly at 1), the second hooking region located at an end of the longitudinal region opposite to the end of the first hooking region and configured to be secured to another hooking region of another ventilation conduit section (fig 3, each duct section 2 is between two hooking region 1, one on either side, and the hooking regions are used to secure the section with other adjacent sections, Kurokawa).
Regarding claim 17, Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon discloses a ventilation conduit comprising a plurality of ventilation conduit sections according to claim 16 secured to one another at the hooking regions (fig 3, ventilation conduit is formed up plurality of sections with corrugations 2 secured to one another at hooking regions 1, Kurokawa), the ventilation conduit being flexible (figs 2-4, Kurokawa, the ventilation conduit can stretch and so is flexible).
Regarding claim 18, Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon discloses the ventilation conduit of claim 17, the layer being made of a second material covering the plurality of layers of the first material of the plurality of ventilation conduit sections (second product image, vent hose is covered in a layer of PVC, which has anti-corrosion properties by nature, Hon)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon in further view of Bell (GB 2227806 A), hereafter known as Bell.
Regarding claim 9, Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon discloses the ventilation conduit section of claim 1, but does not disclose the first material being any one of galvanized steel, aluminum or stainless steel, although the duct of Kurokawa is disclosed to be metal (claims paragraph 1, Kurokawa). However, Bell teaches a ventilation conduit made of galvanized steel or aluminum (page 3, paragraph 2, Bell). Bell describes a corrugated duct with sinusoidal walls, a field closely related to Kurokawa, Buettner, Hon, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Bell into Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon and made the periodic layers of the duct of Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon out of galvanized steel or aluminum. The use of galvanized steel or aluminum in ducting is well known in the art for low cost and good reliability, benefits that would be passed on to the duct.
Claims 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon in further view of Takagi (US 5325893 A), hereafter known as Takagi.
Regarding claim 11, Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon discloses the ventilation conduit section of claim 10, but does not disclose the layer of the second material being glued to the plurality of layers of the first material with an adhesive. However, Takagi teaches gluing a layer of a second material onto a duct of a first material (col 9, lines 1-3, a glue of resin is used to secure the paper layer to the metal layer, Takagi). Takagi describes a sinusoidal corrugated metal duct, a field closely related to Kurokawa, Buettner, Hon, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Takagi into Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon and use the adhesive of Takagi to glue the layer of PVC of Hon to the metal duct of Kurokawa. The use of adhesives to secure two dissimilar material is well known in the art, and the layer of adhesive can further protect the metal of the duct from corrosion (col 9, lines 9-14, Takagi), in addition to the corrosion protection already provided by the PVC layer of Hon.
Regarding claim 12, Kurokawa in view of Buettner, Hon, and Takagi discloses the ventilation conduit section of claim 11, the adhesive being hot-melted (col 9, lines 1-3, a glue of hot melted resin is used to secure the paper layer to the metal layer, Takagi)
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon in further view of Reflectix’s product on Amazon “Reflectix DW1202504 Spiral Duct Wrap”, hereafter known as Reflectix.
Regarding claim 14, Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon discloses the ventilation conduit section of claim 1, but does not disclose comprising a thermal insulation membrane covering the layer of the second material. However, Reflectix teaches a thermal insulation membrane wrap for ducts (product name, product description second bullet point, Reflectix). Reflectix describes an insulation wrap for ducts, a field relevant to Kurokawa, Buettner, Hon, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Reflectix into Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon and wrap the duct of Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon with the insulating wrap of Reflectix. Wrapping a duct in insulation is well known in the art, and the insulation would reduce unwanted heat transfer from the duct to the surrounding air, increasing the R value by 4.2 (product description fifth bullet point, Reflectix).
Regarding claim 19, Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon discloses the ventilation conduit of claim 17 but does not disclose comprising a thermal insulation membrane covering the layer of the second material. However, Reflectix teaches a thermal insulation membrane wrap for ducts (product name, product description second bullet point, Reflectix). Reflectix describes an insulation wrap for ducts, a field relevant to Kurokawa, Buettner, Hon, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Reflectix into Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon and wrap the duct of Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon with the insulating wrap of Reflectix. Wrapping a duct in insulation is well known in the art, and the insulation would reduce unwanted heat transfer from the duct to the surrounding air, increasing the R value by 4.2 (product description fifth bullet point, Reflectix).
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon in further view of SHIJIAZHUANG WOODOO TRADE CO.,LTD’ product “Circle Galvanized Ventilation Duct Clamps With Red Rubber Quick Lock Fittings”, hereafter known as SWT.
Regarding claim 20, Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon discloses the ventilation conduit of claim 17, but does not disclose the ventilation conduit further comprising
an attachment system configured to secure the ventilation conduit to an external peripheral or to another ventilation conduit,
the attachment system comprising an elastic band secured around one of the sections of the ventilation conduit and a hook, the hook securing the elastic band to the external peripheral or to the other ventilation conduit.
However, SWT teaches an attachment system configured to secure the ventilation conduit to an external peripheral or to another ventilation conduit (left product picture, product description, duct clamp connects pieces of ventilation conduit, SWT),
the attachment system comprising an elastic band secured around one of the sections of the ventilation conduit and a hook (right product picture, clamp has rubber elastic band in red, which is secured around the ventilation conduit (lift product picture), and hook for the tightening and releasing lever, SWT), the hook securing the elastic band to the external peripheral or to the other ventilation conduit (left product picture, the hook engages with the metal loop of the releasing lever and secures the red elastic band to the ventilation conduit, SWT). SWT is a product page for a duct connector clamp, a field related to Kurokawa, Buettner, Hon, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of SWT into Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon and use the duct clamp of SWT to connect sections of the duct of Kurokawa in view of Buettner and Hon. The clamps of SWT attach and detach quickly (product description, SWT), a feature that would benefit the ventilation system.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa in view of Novotek Machinery’s video “Corrugated Sheet Roll Forming Machine (G550 full hard, 0.18-0.30mm)”, hereafter known as Novotek, Takagi, and Hujump Adhesive’s webpage “Common Winter Hot Melt Adhesive Problems & Solutions”, hereafter known as Hujump.
Regarding claim 21, Kurokawa discloses a method manufacturing a ventilation conduit, the method comprising the steps of.
i. processing a first material through a series of dies to obtain a resulting profile (page 2, paragraph 2, the material, which is metal from claims line 1, is formed into a corrugated profile, but dies are not disclosed, Kurokawa);
ii. processing the first material in a hook configuration (claims line 1, the edges of the metal material is winded together to form the hook configuration in fig 2, Kurokawa);
iii. wrapping the resulting profile around a tool to create the shape of a ventilation duct (description paragraph 3, the plates are winded into a cylindrical duct, but the tool is not disclosed, Kurokawa) ;
iv. processing the first material in accordance with the geometric requirements of the ventilation duct (page 2, paragraph 2, the material, which is metal from claims line 1, is formed into a corrugated profile in accordance to the geometric requirements of the duct, Kurokawa);
v. applying a layer of a second material having anti-corrosion properties over the first material using a hot melt adhesive (not disclosed);
vi. heating the second material to increase its properties (not disclosed).
Kurokawa does not disclose processing with a series of dies to form the corrugated profile. However, Novotek teaches using a series of dies to form corrugations in a metal sheet (0:00 -0:20 of video, Novotek). Novotek is a demonstration video for a metal corrugating machine, a field closely related to Kurokawa and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Novotek into Kurokawa and use the forming machine and dies of Novotek to form the corrugations of Kurokawa. Using a series of dies to form sheet metal is very well known in the art for its speed and consistency, features that would benefit the manufacturing process of the duct of Kurokawa in view of Novotek.
Kurokawa in view of Novotek does not disclose wrapping the profile around a tool to create the shape of the ventilation duct, nor applying a layer of a second material having anti-corrosion properties over the first material using a hot melt adhesive. However, Takagi teaches wrapping a corrugated profile around a tool to form a duct (fig 4, col 1, lines 50-55, corrugated metal exits shaping machine 14 and wraps around roll 15 to form a duct, Takagi), applying a layer of a second material having anti-corrosion properties over the first material using a hot melt adhesive (figs 5-7, a layer of a specialty paper 23, which prevents the duct from oxidizing and thus corroding (col 3 lines 43-53, Takagi), is applied over the metal duct 20 using adhesive 24 (col 4 lines 58-68, Takagi), which can be holt-melted, col 8, line 65 - col 9 line 3, Takagi). Takagi describes a corrugated duct, a field closely related to Kurokawa, Novotek, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Takagi into Kurokawa in view of Novotek, and use the wrapping tool of Takagi to form the duct of Kurokawa in view of Novotek, as well as apply the condensation inhibiting paper of Takagi to the duct of Kurokawa in view of Novotek using the hot melt adhesive of Takagi. Roll 15 of Takagi provides a consistent guideline for the dimensions of the formed duct, improving the consistency of the finished product, and the paper and adhesive of Takagi can provide fire resistance in addition to the corrosion resistance (col 3, lines 54-58, Takagi).
Kurokawa in view of Novotek and Takagi does not disclose heating second material to increase its properties. However, Hujump teaches preheating the substrate before applying hot melt adhesive to increase its adhesion properties (solution to Q1, Hujump). Hujump is a webpage about the effects of low temperatures on hot melt adhesives, a field related to Takagi and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Hujump into Kurokawa in view of Novotek and Takagi, and preheat the first and second materials (the metal duct of Kurokawa and paper of Takagi) to increase their adhesion properties prior to gluing them together using the hot melt adhesive of Takagi. Preheating the substrate results in proper penetration, and can avoid false bonding or weak adhesion (cause of Q1, Hujump).
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa in view of Novotek, Takagi, and Hujump, in further view of Dunay (US 20010050325 A1), hereafter known as Dunay, and Jacobs (US 5871193 A), hereafter known as Jacobs
Regarding claim 22, Kurokawa in view of Novotek, Takagi, and Hujump discloses the method of claim 21, but does not disclose the method further comprising:
i. securing an elastic band to the ventilation duct;
ii. hooking a hook to the elastic band and to an external peripheral for installation of the ventilation duct on-site.
However, Dunay teaches securing an elastic band to a duct (fig 2, loops 12 and 18 can be secured to duct 22, and can be made of rubber (paragraph 0031), and are thus elastic bands, Dunay), hooking a hook to the elastic band (paragraph 0043, Dunay). Dunay describes a method of mounting a duct, a field related to Kurokawa, Takagi, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Dunay into Kurokawa in view of Novotek, Takagi, and Hujump and use the strap of Dunay to hang the duct of Kurokawa in view of Novotek, Takagi, and Hujump. The use of mounting straps to secure ducts is well known in the art and the strap of Dunay is adjustable (paragraph 0019), allowing for different sized ducts to be installed without changing the mounting strap.
Kurokawa in view of Novotek, Takagi, Hujump, and Dunay does not disclose hooking a hook to an external peripheral for installation of the ventilation duct on-site. However, Jacobs teaches using a hook to hook onto an external peripheral for installation of the ventilation duct on-site (fig 1, col 4 line 61- col 5 line 7, S-hook 12 is hooked onto peripherals S and T and suspends duct C, Jacobs). Jacobs describes a hangar for ventilation ducts, a field closely related to Kurokawa, Takagi, Dunay, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Jacobs into Kurokawa in view of Novotek, Takagi, Hujump, and Dunay and use the hook of Jacobs to hang the mounting strap of Dunay. The use of hooks to suspend ducts is well known in the art, and the double ended hook allows the mounting strap, and thus the duct, to be suspended at a distance.
Claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa in view of Novotek, Takagi, and Hujump, in further view of Anti-seize’ s product “SILVER ZINC™ COLD GALVANIZING SPRAY (Bright Silver Color)”, hereafter known as Anti-seize.
Regarding claim 23, Kurokawa in view of Novotek, Takagi, and Hujump discloses the method of claim 21, but does not disclose the method further comprising:
i. spraying an anti-corrosion coat on the first material.
However, Anti-seize teaches an anti-corrosion spray for metals and heating and air conditioning systems (product description, Application section, Anti-seize). Anti-seize is a product page for a corrosion preventing galvanizing spray for metals, an art relevant to Kurokawa, Novotek, Takagi, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Anti-seize into Kurokawa in view of Novotek, Takagi, and Hujump and spray a coat of the anti-corrosion spray of anti-seize onto the metal duct of Kurokawa during the manufacturing process. The spray prevent corrosion of the duct, especially on the inside surfaces, which are not covered by the paper of Takagi.
Claim 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa in view of Novotek, Takagi, and Hujump, in further view of Reflectix.
Regarding claim 24, Kurokawa in view of Novotek, Takagi, and Hujump discloses the method of claim 21, but does not disclose the method further comprising:
i. covering the layer of the second material with a thermal insulation membrane.
However, Reflectix teaches a thermal insulation membrane wrap for ducts (product name, product description second bullet point, Reflectix). Reflectix describes an insulation wrap for ducts, a field relevant to Kurokawa, Buettner, Hon, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Reflectix into Kurokawa in view of Novotek, Takagi, and Hujump and wrap the duct of Kurokawa in view of Novotek, Takagi, and Hujump with the insulating wrap of Reflectix. Wrapping a duct in insulation is well known in the art, and the insulation would reduce unwanted heat transfer from the duct to the surrounding air, increasing the R value by 4.2 (product description fifth bullet point, Reflectix).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zwerling (US 2491700 A) discloses a duct with folded connection ends
Murphy (US 20070227999 A1) discloses an air hose securing elastic band with hooks on both ends.
Santa Cruz (US 6032907 A) and Andreas (US 2542172 A) discloses a pipe hanger with hooks and elastic band
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOTIAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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, Kenneth Rinehart, can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753