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 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(s) 1-19 is(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 1 recites “wherein the outer panel and the inner panel form a panel overlap” and “a parallel portion formed along the panel overlap” therefore requiring an arrangement i.e. positively requiring the outer panel. However, the outer panel is not positively recited by the claim i.e. the inner panel is only configured to connect with an outer panel.
Claims 2-12 are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the inner panel is formed with a folding machine, wherein the folding machine comprises: a. a first forming bar….”. However, this constitutes a product and apparatus for its making claim because the “folding machine” and all the limitations directed to it are wholly out of the scope of what constitutes a root barrier.
Claims 14-19 are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim 14 recites “ wherein the first heater and the second heater heat...”. However, this constitutes a product and apparatus for its making claim because the “folding machine” and all the limitations directed to it are wholly out of the scope of what constitutes a root barrier.
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) 1,2,4,7,8,10,13-15,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zwier (US 20050210740 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Zwier discloses:
A root barrier comprising: (abstract and figs, para0003)
a. an inner panel, (10, figs 1+2)
wherein the inner panel has an inner panel middle warp; (proximal to numeral 14)
b. an inner panel lower edge (14, fig 1)
and an inner panel upper edge formed on the inner panel; (13, fig 1)
c. an inner panel right edge, (17, fig 1)
and an inner panel left edge formed on the inner panel; (16, figs 1+2)
d. an inner panel right rib formed on the inner panel right edge (21, fig 1)
and an inner panel left rib formed on the inner panel left edge, (18, fig 1)
wherein the inner panel right rib is formed as a first pinch rib (22A+21A, fig 1)
and wherein the inner panel left rib is formed as a second pinch rib, (19A+18A)
wherein the first pinch rib and the second pinch rib are both configured to connect with an outer panel, (see connection with 10’, fig 2)
wherein the outer panel and the inner panel form a panel overlap; (para0058+0059, fig 2)
and e. a parallel portion formed along the panel overlap, (fig 2, see parallel portion prox to numerals 21+21’)
wherein the parallel portion has a panel gap, (see gap formed between the parallel portion)
wherein the inner panel right rib forms a first inner pinch retainer, (interior of 21A+22A)
and wherein the panel left rib forms a second inner pinch retainer, (interior of 19A+18A)
wherein the first inner pinch retainer is formed as a first notch and groove connector, (para0059+Fig 2 see notch and grooves)
wherein the second inner pinch retainer is formed as a second notch and groove connector. (para0059+Fig 2 see notch and grooves)
Regarding claim 2:
Zwier further discloses:
wherein the inner panel is flexible and acts as a leaf spring, wherein the inner panel middle warp is resilient and can be flattened along the panel overlap when compressed together in an installed mode. (para0059, it is noted that 10 is made from plastic or rubber materials that are inherently flexible and can act as a leaf spring thereby also allowing the inner panel middle warp to be resilient and flattened along the panel overlap when comprised together in an installed mode as seen in fig 2)
Regarding claim 4:
Zwier further discloses:
wherein the inner panel is configured to deform when a root grows under the inner panel. (para0059, it is noted that 10 is made from plastic or rubber materials that are inherently flexible and allow for deformation when the roots grow under the panel)
Regarding claim 7:
Zwier discloses:
wherein the outer panel further comprises: (10’, fig 2)
an outer panel middle warp; (prox to numeral 14’)
b. an outer panel lower edge (14’, fig 2)
and an outer panel upper edge formed on the outer panel; (edge opposite of 14’, fig 2)
c. an outer panel right edge, (16’, fig 2)
and an outer panel left edge formed on the outer panel; and (17’, fig 2)
d. an outer panel right rib formed on the outer panel right edge and (18’, fig 2)
an outer panel left rib formed on the outer panel left edge, (17’, see rib on the right)
wherein the outer panel right rib is formed as a first pinch rib (19A’, fig 2)
And wherein the outer panel left rib is formed as a second pinch rib. (17’, para0059)
Regarding claim 8:
Zwier further discloses:
wherein the inner panel is flexible and acts as a leaf spring, wherein the inner panel middle warp is resilient and can be flattened along the panel overlap when compressed together in an installed mode. (para0059, it is noted that 10 is made from plastic or rubber materials that are inherently flexible and can act as a leaf spring thereby also allowing the inner panel middle warp to be resilient and flattened along the panel overlap when comprised together in an installed mode as seen in fig 2)
Regarding claim 10:
Zwier further discloses:
wherein the inner panel is configured to deform when a root grows under the inner panel. (para0059, it is noted that 10 is made from plastic or rubber materials that are inherently flexible and allow for deformation when the roots grow under the panel)
Regarding claims 13-14:
As best understood due to the 112b rejection above, claims 13&14 are further rejected in view of Zwier since Zwier disclosing the product (i.e. root barrier of claims 1&7) and since the limitations of the folding machine are beyond the scope of what a root barrier is.
Regarding claim 15:
Zwier further discloses:
wherein the inner panel is flexible and acts as a leaf spring, wherein the inner panel middle warp is resilient and can be flattened along the panel overlap when compressed together in an installed mode. (para0059, it is noted that 10 is made from plastic or rubber materials that are inherently flexible and can act as a leaf spring thereby also allowing the inner panel middle warp to be resilient and flattened along the panel overlap when comprised together in an installed mode as seen in fig 2)
Regarding claim 17:
Zwier further discloses:
wherein the inner panel is configured to deform when a root grows under the inner panel. (para0059, it is noted that 10 is made from plastic or rubber materials that are inherently flexible and allow for deformation when the roots grow under the panel)
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) 3,9,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwier.
Regarding claim 3:
Zwier discloses claim 1 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the inner panel is formed with a flexible panel lower edge.
In an alternative embodiment, Zwier discloses:
wherein the inner panel is formed with a flexible panel lower edge. (Figs 34+35, para0084)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inner panel of the first embodiment of Zwier to comprise a flexible panel lower edge as taught by the alternative embodiment of Zwier to allow for an easy snap-fit configuration during use (Zwier).
Regarding claim 9:
Zwier discloses claim 7 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the inner panel is formed with a flexible panel lower edge.
In an alternative embodiment, Zwier discloses:
wherein the inner panel is formed with a flexible panel lower edge. (Figs 34+35, para0084)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inner panel of the first embodiment of Zwier to comprise a flexible panel lower edge as taught by the alternative embodiment of Zwier to allow for an easy snap-fit configuration during use (Zwier).
Regarding claim 16:
Zwier discloses claim 13 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the inner panel is formed with a flexible panel lower edge.
In an alternative embodiment, Zwier discloses:
wherein the inner panel is formed with a flexible panel lower edge. (Figs 34+35, para0084)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inner panel of the first embodiment of Zwier to comprise a flexible panel lower edge as taught by the alternative embodiment of Zwier to allow for an easy snap-fit configuration during use (Zwier).
Claim(s) 5,11,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwier, as applied to claims 1,7,13 above, and in view of CN (CN 111616026 A).
Regarding claim 5:
Zwier discloses claim 1 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the inner panel is formed of at least 40% low-density polyethylene by weight, 40% high density polyethylene by weight, and at least 2% carbon.
CN discloses:
material comprising at least 40% low-density polyethylene by weight, 40% high density polyethylene by weight, and at least 2% carbon. (“comprising low density polyethylene (LDPE) 0 ~ 50 %...~, high density polyethylene (HDPE) 0 ~ 50 %, carbon black 1 ~ 3 %)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inner panel of Zwier to comprise a material as taught by CN to reduce production costs (CN).
Regarding claim 11:
Zwier discloses claim 7 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the inner panel is formed of at least 40% low-density polyethylene by weight, 40% high density polyethylene by weight, and at least 2% carbon.
CN discloses:
material comprising at least 40% low-density polyethylene by weight, 40% high density polyethylene by weight, and at least 2% carbon. (“comprising low density polyethylene (LDPE) 0 ~ 50 %...~, high density polyethylene (HDPE) 0 ~ 50 %, carbon black 1 ~ 3 %)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inner panel of Zwier to comprise a material as taught by CN to reduce production costs (CN).
Regarding claim 18:
Zwier discloses claim 13 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the inner panel is formed of at least 40% low-density polyethylene by weight, 40% high density polyethylene by weight, and at least 2% carbon.
CN discloses:
material comprising at least 40% low-density polyethylene by weight, 40% high density polyethylene by weight, and at least 2% carbon. (“comprising low density polyethylene (LDPE) 0 ~ 50 %...~, high density polyethylene (HDPE) 0 ~ 50 %, carbon black 1 ~ 3 %)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inner panel of Zwier to comprise a material as taught by CN to reduce production costs (CN).
Claim(s) 6,12,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwier, as applied to claims 1,7,13 above, and in view of Dworzan (US 20070266626 A1).
Regarding claim 6:
Zwier discloses claim 1 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the inner panel right rib is V-shaped and the panel left rib is also V-shaped.
Dworzan discloses:
wherein the panel rib is V-shaped. (17, Fig 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inner panel right and left ribs of Zwier to comprise a v-shape as taught by Dworzan allow for an effective hold between the sheets (Dworzan).
Regarding claim 12:
Zwier discloses claim 7 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the inner panel right rib is V-shaped and the panel left rib is also V-shaped.
Dworzan discloses:
wherein the panel rib is V-shaped. (17, Fig 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inner panel right and left ribs of Zwier to comprise a v-shape as taught by Dworzan allow for an effective hold between the sheets (Dworzan)).
Regarding claim 19:
Zwier discloses claim 13 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the inner panel right rib is V-shaped and the panel left rib is also V-shaped.
Dworzan discloses:
wherein the panel rib is V-shaped. (17, Fig 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inner panel right and left ribs of Zwier to comprise a v-shape as taught by Dworzan allow for an effective hold between the sheets (Dworzan)).
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADA M ALGHAILANI whose telephone number is (571)272-8058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30am - 4:30pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached on 571-272-6891. 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.
/SHADA MOHAMED ALGHAILANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643