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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 1 and 3-11 are currently pending of which claims 8-11 are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended and claim 2 is cancelled.
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, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owens et al. (US 2016/0340020) and further in view of Shibata et al. (JP 2010-223496).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Owens discloses a heated floor panel (10) comprising a base assembly having a top layer (22/12/18), bottom layer (24), and honeycomb layer (14) located between the top and bottom layers (0019-0020, Fig. 1). The bottom layer having a first surface opposite the first surface of the top layer (Fig. 1). A heating layer (16) located between the top layer (22/12/18) and the honeycomb layer (14) (Fig. 1). A skin layer (26) located over a first surface of the top layer opposite a second surface facing the honeycomb layer (Fig. 1).
Owens does not teach the skin layer extending from a first surface of the top layer of the base assembly to a first surface of the bottom layer of the base assembly.
Shibata, in the analogous field of floor heating panels (0001), discloses a heating panel in which the heat generating panel main body (P) is covered by a heat spreader sheet (1) comprising hanging portions (11) with or without extending horizontal bent pieces (12) (Fig. 2a and b, 0029-0030).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the skin of Owens to extend over the side of the panel as taught by Shibata (and thus surrounding an outer perimeter of the core), to achieve a heated floor surface which is substantially uniform and comfortable across the entire floor surface (0031).
Regarding claim 4, Owens teaches the skin can be a composite prepreg (0025).
Regarding claim 6, in the structure of Owens in view of Shibata, the covering will define a cavity configured to receive the base assembly as the covering extends along the side.
Regarding claim 7, the covering will be directly adjacent to the outer perimeter of the honeycomb core.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owens in view of Shibata as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Werthen et al. (US 2012/0040135).
Regarding claim 5, modified Owens discloses the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above, while teaching the covering including a composite prepreg (0025), Owens does not teach use of aramid fibers.
Werthen, in the analogous field of aircraft floor panels (0002), discloses a sandwich panel in which the skin layers are fiber reinforced with aramid fibers (0032).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the covering of Owens to include aramid fibers, as taught by Werthen, to resist high impact loads and fatigue loads (0033).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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. Fink et al. (US 2011/0149447) teaching a floor panel where the heating layer is directly between the core and upper layer.
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 ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights