DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed are pending and have been considered below.
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) 1-7, 10-13, 15-18, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fricker et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,525,968).
Regarding claim 1, Fricker et al. teaches a tile (block; 1’) for heat insulation (abstract), the tile comprising: a tile body defining a shell (figure 4) having a pair of sidewalls (9.4a, 9.4b) and an end wall (9.3) extending between and attached to the sidewalls (figure 4); a cover (9.2) configured to couple to and close the shell to form a box with an enclosure inside the box (figure 4); and one or more spaced apart panels (2’) of infrared radiation reflective material (foil; col. 6, lines 20-25) disposed within the enclosure and extending across a width and length of the enclosure (figure 4) to divide the enclosure into two or more separate sub-chambers (3), wherein the tile inhibits conduction heat transfer, convection heat transfer and radiation heat transfer therethrough (it is understood that since the structural elements and materials of the claim are taught, then the block would be capable of functioning as a tile that inhibits conduction heat transfer, convection heat transfer and radiation heat transfer therethrough).
Regarding claim 2, Fricker et al. teaches the cover is coupleable to the shell via one or more welds (col. 6, lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 3, Fricker et al. teaches the one or more spaced apart panels comprise aluminum foil (foil; col. 6, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 4, Fricker et al. teaches the one or more spaced apart panels within the enclosure are three spaced apart panels (2’).
Regarding claim 5, Fricker et al. teaches the one or more spaced apart panels are attached to a frame (strips 4), an assembly of the one or more spaced apart panels and the frame configured to be disposed in the enclosure (figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Fricker et al. teaches the frame can be removably disposed within the enclosure (it is understood that the strips are capable of being removably disposed). Furthermore, with regards to the limitation that the product is formed by using removably disposed, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of using the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Fricker et al. teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, Fricker et al. teaches the box has planar surfaces (figure 4).
Regarding claim 10, Fricker et al. teaches a tile (block; 1’) for heat insulation (abstract), the tile comprising: a tile body at least partially defining an enclosure (figure 4); a cover (9.2) configured to couple to and close the enclosure (figure 4); and one or more spaced apart panels (2’) of reflective material (foil; col. 6, lines 20-25) disposed within the enclosure (figure 4) and extending across a width and length of the enclosure (figure 4) to divide the enclosure into two or more separate sub-chambers (3), wherein the tile inhibits conduction heat transfer, convection heat transfer and radiation heat transfer therethrough (it is understood that since the structural elements and materials of the claim are taught, then the block would be capable of functioning as a tile that inhibits conduction heat transfer, convection heat transfer and radiation heat transfer therethrough).
Regarding claim 11, Fricker et al. teaches the one or more spaced apart panels comprise aluminum foil (foil; col. 6, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 12, Fricker et al. teaches the one or more spaced apart panels are attached to a frame (strips 4) configured to be removably disposed in the enclosure (it is understood that the strips are capable of being removably disposed in the enclosure). Furthermore, with regards to the limitation that the product is formed by using removably disposed, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of using the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Fricker et al. teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 13, Fricker et al. teaches the tile body has planar surfaces (figure 4).
Regarding claim 15, Fricker et al. teaches a tile (block; 1’) for heat insulation (abstract), the tile comprising: a tile body at least partially defining an enclosure (figure 4); and one or more spaced apart panels (2’) of reflective material (foil; col. 6, lines 20-25) disposed within the enclosure and extending across a width and length of the enclosure (figure 4) to divide the enclosure into two or more separate sub-chambers (3), wherein the tile inhibits conduction heat transfer, convection heat transfer and radiation heat transfer therethrough (it is understood that since the structural elements and materials of the claim are taught, then the block would be capable of functioning as a tile that inhibits conduction heat transfer, convection heat transfer and radiation heat transfer therethrough).
Regarding claim 16, Fricker et al. teaches the one or more spaced apart panels comprise aluminum foil (foil; col. 6, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 17, Fricker et al. teaches the one or more spaced apart panels are attached to a frame (strips 4) within the enclosure (figure 4).
Regarding claim 18, Fricker et al. teaches the tile body has a planar shape (figure 4).
Regarding claim 20, Fricker et al. teaches the one or more spaced apart panels have a same shape as the tile body.
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 of this title, 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) 8, 9, 14, and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fricker et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,525,968).
Regarding claims 8, 14, and 19, the figure 4 embodiment of Fricker et al. does not specifically disclose the box has an arc shape defined by a radius of curvature. However, the figure 1 embodiment discloses the box has an arc shape defined by a radius of curvature (figure 1). Therefore, from the teaching of the figure 1 embodiment of Fricker et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the figure 4 embodiment such that the box has an arc shape defined by a radius of curvature, as taught by the figure 1 embodiment, in order to provide for a desired visual design for a building for a more pleasing aesthetic.
Regarding claim 9, the figure 4 embodiment of Fricker et al. does not specifically disclose the box has S-shaped surfaces. However, the figure 1 embodiment discloses the box has a C-shaped surface (figure 1) and further discloses the joining together of blocks (abstract). In addition, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shape of the box to have S-shaped surfaces, since such a modification would have only involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Absent any persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). It is also common knowledge to choose a shape that has a desired aesthetic or durability and flexibility etc. for the application and intended use of that element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the box to have S-shaped surfaces, in order to provide for a desired visual design for a building for a more pleasing aesthetic.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited patents listed on the included form PTO-892 further show the state of the art with respect to insulated tiles in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635