DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 are cancelled resulting in claims 16-30 pending for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the second woven fabric 28 in Fig. 4 as described on page 18 of the specification starting at line 14 and the zones Z1 and Z2 in Figs. 4 and 5 as described on page 19, line 37 through page 20, line 15. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the m stays" in 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear how the “m stays” and mean at-rest length h̅m differ from the previously recited “stay i” and the at-rest length hi in line 15.
Claims 17-30 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependency from claim 16, rejected above.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “each group Gj being characterized in that each stage…” in lines 2-3. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes a “stage” of a group.
Claim 18 also recites the limitation “for j and k being different integers” in lines 4-5. The limitation is indefinite because the variable k has not been defined, therefore it is unclear what j is being compared to.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “there is an elongation AED < ARED …” in lines 5-6. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether elongation is describing the variable AED or the relationship AED < ARED. It is the understanding of the examiner that the elongation is represented by AED. Therefore it is recommended to amend the claim to state –there is an elongation A------ED such that when AED < ARED a relationship M1ED/M2ED<1 is fulfilled…-- or a similar amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16-18, 22-23, 25, and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noyes (US 3328218) in view of Hayes (US 3565125).
With respect to claims 16-17, 22-23, 25, and 27-30, Noyes teaches a completed element 21 composed of coextensive parallel outer plies or sheets 22 and 23, having members 24 mounted therebetween and oriented at approximately right angles to the plies (col. 2, lines 52-57). The member utilizes a regular pattern of distribution of the columnar members (linking structure comprising stays), and it is understood that the length of the spacing thereof may be varied according to the desired strength of the member (col. 3, lines 55-60). In an embodiment shown in Figure 17 the outer ply 63 is a continuous member having a curvature and the central stiffener 61 has members 62 (stay) mounted that are of different lengths to conform to the shape desired (wherein at least some of the m stays of the linking structure have an at-rest length that is different from a mean h̅m of the at-rest length of stays) (col. 5, lines 8-11). The product may be used as a building panel (col. 1, lines 66-72).
The columnar members (stays) may be plastic, such as polystyrene, nylon or polyester; refractory, such as glass, asbestos, or ceramic; metal, such as brass, copper, steel, tantalum, molybdenum, tungsten, or aluminum; animal such as hog bristle; vegetable such as sisal; or other materials according to the end use (col. 2, lines 60-65). To one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to try the different materials of the columnar members in order to determine which provides the desired strength (see e.g., col. 3, lines 55-60).
It further would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the heights of the longest columnar members and the shortest columnar members and the elongation at break through selection of the columnar material to fulfill the claimed relationship in claim 16 and the claimed mean stay height in claim 29. One would have been motivated to provide a difference in height which provides the desired final shape without adversely affecting the strength of the final member while also providing a columnar member that provides the necessary strength. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Noyes is silent as to the plies being woven and plastically deformable.
Hayes teaches a dual wall containment fabric having integrally woven connection points (col. 2, lines 3-5). The fabric layers are woven (col. 3, lines 16-32) and the materials of the warp and weft yarns may be nylon (col. 4, lines 48-52).
Since both Noyes and Hayes teach construction panels comprising dual fabrics, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plies of Noyes to be a nylon woven because woven fabrics are known in the art as suitable for fabric construction panels and provide the predictable result of a fabric panel suitable for use for construction and related purposes. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
With respect to the woven fabric being plastically deformable, as described above Hayes teaches the use of nylon woven fabric is suitable for dual layered construction fabric. Instant claim 25 identifies polyamide as a suitable material for the woven fabrics. Therefore, the nylon (polyamide) woven fabric of Noyes in view of Hayes is interpreted as meeting the definition of “plastic deformation” provided on page 3, lines 10-12 of the specification as filed.
With respect to claim 18, Noyes in view of Hayes teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above. The columnar members can be organized into groups based on their height. For example, each group comprises columnar members of the same height. In Fig. 18 a group can be defined by each row of columnar members.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noyes (US 3328218) in view of Hayes (US 3565125) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Pehr (US 4409271).
With respect to claims 19-21, Noyes in view of Hayes teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above.
Noyes in view of Hayes is silent as to a filling material being between the plies.
Pehr teaches a lightweight construction element comprising a fabric backing (col. 1, lines 6-8). The fabric backing consists of an untrimmed velvet fabric comprising vertical pile yarns linking two fabric webs to hold the webs at a predetermined distance while the internal space of the velvet fabric is filled with a pressurizing medium (col. 2, lines 13-24). The vertical pile yarns reliably prevent bulging out of the fabric webs during the filling process and after its conclusion (col. 2, lines 13-24). Pressurizing the construction element provides a stable structure (col. 3, lines 25-28). A hardenable plastic foam (expanded material) may be used as the pressurizing medium to ensure adequate dimensional stability and a relatively low weight (col. 2, lines 34-40). The foam may be polyurethane foam (col. 3, lines 30-32).
Since both Noyes in view of Hayes and Pehr teach plies connected by vertical yarns for construction panels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the construction panel of Noyes in view of Hayes to be pressurized by polyurethane foam in order to stabilize the structure and provide adequate dimensional stability at a relatively low weight.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noyes (US 3328218) in view of Hayes (US 3565125) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Roell (US 5589245).
With respect to claim 26, Noyes in view of Hayes teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above.
Noyes in view of Hayes is silent as to one of the woven plies comprising a material that is either fire-retardant through its nature or by having a fire-retardant treatment.
Roell teaches a textile spacer material consisting of at least two covering layers which are joined by a pile thread structure (col. 1, lines 41-43). Roell further teaches the spacer fabric may be treated to be resistant to environmental effects such as heat (fire) or aggressive chemical substances so that it can be used in industrial cladding or linings (col. 5, lines 29-35).
Since both Noyes in view of Hayes and Roell teach spacer fabrics for use in industry, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have treated the spacer fabric of Noyes in view of Hayes, including the woven plies, to be fire resistant in order to ensure its safe use in industrial settings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Korfmacher (US 5595806) discloses a mat having an air-tight flexible envelope closable by means of a valve and filled with a granular filling material (abstract). The filling material is lodged in a fabric sack made from a spacing fabric (abstract). The filling material is a composite body composed of at least two materials having different mechanical properties (abstract).
Rock (US 6156406) discloses three-dimensional knit spacer fabric (abstract). The fabric includes a first fabric layer, a second fabric layer and yarns interconnecting the two layers (abstract). A portion of the yarns interconnecting the two layers is perpendicular to each of the first and second fabric layers, while the remaining interconnecting yarns will be disposed at an angle between the two layers (abstract). The fabric is pressurized until the angled interconnecting yarns are also disposed perpendicularly with respect to the two layers resulting in a fabric insert for footwear having sections with different fabric thickness (col. 1, lines 33-41).
Chen (US 7913520) discloses structure of a spacer fabric and a thickness-controlled knitting method for producing the same, the method including knitting a yarn into a three laminated layer fabric, and the three laminated layer fabric including a top layer, a middle layer and a bottom layer, wherein the middle layer has one end connected with the top layer and the other end connected with the bottom layer; and the spacer fabric has its thickness determined by a length and a knitted angle of the yarn of the middle layer; when in the knitting process, the length of each yarn of the middle layer is gradually decreased/increased and the knitted angle of each yam of the middle layer is varied, thereby gradually increasing or decreasing the thickness of the spacer fabric (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789