DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 44-49,51, 58-67 are pending.
Claims 2-43, 50, and 52-57 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is missing the word, “an” before “internal wall” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 44-49, 51, 59-67 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.
Re claim 44, claim 44 recites, “the radiant barrier” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language refers to, “the radiant barrier material” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 45, claim 45 recites, “the coupling” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language refers to, “coupling” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 51, claim 51 recites, “the layer” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language refers to, “the layer of low emissivity layer” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 62, claim 62 recites, “the extrusion” in line 2. Due to the claim’s dependency on claim 60 instead claim 61, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this claim is intended to depend from claim 61 and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 46-49, 59-61, 63-67 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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) 1, 44-49, 51, 58-67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouquot et al (“Bouquot”) (US 2014/0245678) in view of Nordgard et al (“Nordgard”) (US 6,866,081).
At the outset, it is noted that although “low emissivity” may generally be considered a relative term, in this instance, the term is not relative and is interpreted consistent with [0021] of the Specification as originally filed.
Re claim 1, Bouquot discloses a structural component (26) for use in a building structure (window 10), including an internal cavity (within 26), defined by an internal wall configuration (walls of 26) comprising:
a radiant barrier insert (31; [0029]), disposed within (Fig. 3) the cavity (within 26), and defining an outermost surface (outer surface of 31), wherein at least a portion (22) of the outermost surface (of 31) is defined by a radiant barrier material (22; [0029]);
but fails to disclose the internal wall surface configuration and the radiant barrier insert are co- operatively configured such that the radiant barrier insert is exerting an elastic force on the internal wall configuration, with effect that the radiant barrier insert is coupled to the internal wall configuration.
However, Nordgard discloses the internal wall surface configuration (Fig. 3; of 12a) and the radiant barrier insert (26) are co-operatively configured such that the radiant barrier insert (26) is exerting an elastic force (Col 2 line 64-Col 3 line 7 discloses an interference fit which necessarily requires an elastic force) on the internal wall configuration (of 12a), with effect that the radiant barrier insert (26) is coupled to (Fig. 3; Col 2 line 64-Coil 3 line 7) the internal wall configuration (of 12a).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural component of Bouquot with the internal wall surface configuration and the radiant barrier insert are co- operatively configured such that the radiant barrier insert is exerting an elastic force on the internal wall configuration, with effect that the radiant barrier insert is coupled to the internal wall configuration as disclosed by Nordgard in order to connect the insert to the cavity in a stable, fastener-less, adhesive-less and tool-less manner.
Re claim 44, Bouquot discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the radiant barrier (22) includes a low emissivity material ([0023] disclosing the reflectivity is greater than 75% which equates to an emissivity of less than .25, [0021] of Applicant’s specification identifies low emissivity materials as those with an emissivity less than .5); the radiant barrier insert (31) includes a composite material (via 22 and 34); and the composite material (22, 34) includes low emissivity material (22) and a substrate material (34) wherein the low emissivity material (22) that is coupled to ([0027]) the substrate material (34).
Re claim 45, Bouquot as modified discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 44, wherein: the coupling (of 22 to 34) of the low emissivity material (22) to the substrate material (34) includes an adherence ([0027]) of the low emissivity material (22) to the substrate material (34).
Re claim 46, Bouquot as modified discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 44, but fails to disclose the low emissivity material defines at least 50% of the total surface area of the insert.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural component of Bouquot wherein the low emissivity material defines at least 50% of the total surface area of the insert in order to further reduce heat transfer at the insert. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claims 47-49, Bouquot as modified discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 44; wherein: the internal wall configuration (walls of 26) defines a total surface area of SA1WG (Fig. 3), and the insert (31) includes at least a surface portion (of 31), that is defined by low emissivity material (22), that has a total surface area of SALEM (Fig. 3), but fails to disclose the ratio of SALEM to SA1WG is at least 0.25 [claim 47], the ratio of SALEM to SA1WG is at least 0.5 [claim 48], and/or the ratio of SALEM to SA1WG is at least 0.25 [claim 49].
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural component of Bouquot wherein the ratio of SALEM to SA1WG is at least 0.25 [claim 47], the ratio of SALEM to SA1WG is at least 0.5 [claim 48], and/or the ratio of SALEM to SA1WG is at least 0.25 [claim 49] in order to further reduce heat transfer at the insert. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 Bouquot as modified 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 51, Bouquot as modified discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 44; but fails to disclose wherein: the low emissivity material (22) includes a layer of low emissivity layer (22; [0023] disclosing the reflectivity is greater than 75% which equates to an emissivity of less than .25, [0021] of Applicant’s specification identifies low emissivity materials as those with an emissivity less than .5) coupled to ([0027]) the substrate (34), but fails to disclose the layer has a minimum thickness of at least 1.5/1000 of an inch.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural component of Bouquot with the layer has a minimum thickness of at least 1.5/1000 of an inch in order to ensure sufficient sizing to provide sufficient reflectance for better/sufficient thermal properties, including emissivity. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 58, Bouquot as modified discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 51; but fails to disclose wherein: the minimum thickness of the insert is at least 21.5/1000 of an inch.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural component of Bouquot wherein: the minimum thickness of the insert is at least 21.5/1000 of an inch in order to ensure sufficient sizing to provide sufficient reflectance for better/sufficient thermal properties, including emissivity. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 59, Bouquot as modified discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 58; but fails to disclose the minimum thickness of the insert is less than, or equal to, 70/1000 of an inch.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural component of Bouquot wherein: the minimum thickness of the insert is less than, or equal to, 70/1000 of an inch in order to ensure sufficient sizing to provide sufficient reflectance for better/sufficient thermal properties, including emissivity. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 60, Bouquot as modified discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 59; the low emissivity material (22) has an emissivity of less than 0.5 (22; [0023] disclosing the reflectivity is greater than 75% which equates to an emissivity of less than .25, [0021] of Applicant’s specification identifies low emissivity materials as those with an emissivity less than .5).
Re claim 61, Bouquot as modified discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 60, defined by an extrusion ([0028]).
It should further be noted that the language “extrusion” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 62, Bouquot as modified discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 60, the extrusion ([0028] is a plastic extrusion ([0028]).
It should further be noted that the language “extrusion” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 63, Bouquot as modified discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 61, configured for integration within (Fig. 3) a window frame (14).
Re claim 64, Bouquot as modified discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 54; the low emissivity material (22) has an emissivity of less than 0.5 (22; [0023] disclosing the reflectivity is greater than 75% which equates to an emissivity of less than .25, [0021] of Applicant’s specification identifies low emissivity materials as those with an emissivity less than .5).
Re claim 65, Bouquot as modified discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 64, defined by an extrusion ([0028]).
It should further be noted that the language “extrusion” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 66, Bouquot as modified discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 65,wherein: the extrusion ([0028] is a plastic extrusion ([0028]).
It should further be noted that the language “extrusion” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 67, Bouquot as modified discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 65, configured for integration within (Fig. 3) a window frame (14).
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Claims: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claim objections is persuasive and objection to the claims is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102/103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot as they do not apply to any of the combination of references relied upon in the above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 Mattei can be reached at (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 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights