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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-11, 16, 18 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hagaman(7073306).
Hagaman figures 2c, 5a-7c, shows an insulating panel comprising: a bottom (20) and a lid (20 on the other side in figure 1) linked at their entire periphery by a side wall (62 or 60) extending along the entire periphery, thereby forming an enclosed housing in which an insulating material (12, 16, 18) is placed, the enclosed housing comprising a bottom face, an upper face and an interior side face (20, and 62 or 60) and a retention system (figure 6a) adapted to retain the insulating material in said panel and to prevent the insulating material from collapsing, wherein said retention system comprises spikes (33b) extending from the bottom face of the insulating panel, or from a structure attached to the bottom face of the insulating panel, each spike terminating at a free end that is positioned between the bottom face and the upper face, the insulating material being in form of flakes(col 7 lines 8-14; shredded paper…shredded..).
Per claim 3, Hagaman further shows the structure comprises a flexible sheet(33a), from which the spikes extend, arranged in the housing of the insulating panel.
Per claim 4, Hagaman further shows the structure comprises two parallel flexible sheets (33a, from each side), from which the spikes extend, arranged in the housing of the insulating panel.
Per claim 5, Hagaman further shows the flexible sheets (33a) are interwoven wires forming meshes.
Per claim 6, Hagaman further shows the spikes are integral with the structures at the interweaving of the wires (inherently so as it is integrally bonded to the mesh).
Per claim 7, Hagaman further shows the spikes extend orthogonally to the bottom and to the lid.
Per claim 8, Hagaman further shows the spikes have a length equal to at least 25% of a distance between the bottom and the lid.
Per claim 10, Hagaman further discloses a distance between the spikes is constant “…installed at regular intervals on the …in the vertical direction…”.
Per claim 11, Hagaman further shows the spikes are positioned to be aligned in the form of a grid (figure6a).
Per claim 16, Hagaman further shows a wall composed of a plurality of insulating panels being attached to one another (figures 2c).
Per claim 18, Hagaman further shows the spikes have a length equal to at least 55% of the distance between the bottom and the lid.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagaman(7073306).
Hagaman shows all the claimed limitations except for the spikes are spaced apart by a distance of 2 to 20 cm, the spikes are spaced apart by a distance of 2 to 15 cm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hagaman’s structure to show the spikes are spaced apart by a distance of 2 to 20 cm, the spikes are spaced apart by a distance of 2 to 15 cm with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a spacing distance best providing the necessary reinforcement for the insulating panel and choosing the claimed dimension would have been an obvious selection as long as it provides the best reinforcement for the panel given a desired strength, weight and cost for the panel.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagaman (7073306).
Hagaman shows all the claimed limitations except for the spikes are positioned to be staggered.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hagaman’s structure to show the spikes are positioned to be staggered since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to reinforce with staggered spikes as long as the spikes provide the best reinforcement for the panel given a desired strength, weight and cost for the panel as the given positions; furthermore, it is well known in the art that staggering a reinforcement members provide enhanced reinforcement against shear forces.
Claim(s) 13, 15, 20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagaman(7073306).
Hagaman shows all the claimed limitations except for show the spikes are made of a metal or plastic material, the insulating material is in the form of flakes, the insulating material has a density of between 10 and 75 kg/m3, the density is between 15 to 45 kg/m3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hagaman’s structure to show the spikes are made of a metal or plastic material, the insulating material is in the form of flakes, the insulating material has a density of between 10 and 75 kg/m3, the density is between 15 to 45 kg/m3 since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416; Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to choose the needed material for forming the reinforced panel as long as the material provide the needed properties for the panel to function as intended.
Claim(s) 17 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagaman (7073306).
Hagaman shows all the claimed structural limitations. The claimed method steps would have been the obvious method steps of manufacturing an insulating panel with Hagaman’s disclosed structures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-13, 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows different insulating panels forming walls.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, BRIAN GLESSNER can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/PHI D A/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633