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 and 39-57 are pending.
Claims 2-38 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim 55 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 55 includes a period in the second to last line which appears intended to be a comma. 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.
Claims 42-43, 46, 49, 51, 55-57 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 42, claim 42 recites, “the composite insert” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the insert” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 43, claim 43 recites, “the composite insert” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the insert” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 46, claim 46 recites, “the composite insert” in line 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the insert” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 49, claim 49 recites, “the composite insert” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the insert” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 51, claim 51 recites, “the air space” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “an air space” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 55, claim 55 recites, “the insert” in line 4, line 6, line 6 and in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the composite insert” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 56, claim 56 recites, “the source material” in line 3, line 5, line 6 and in line 6-7. In addition, claim 56 recites, “the detached portion” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the multiple insert source material” and “the one portion” and will be interpreted as such.
Claim 57 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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, 39-43, 54-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Minelli et al (“Minelli”) (US 20190145155).
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, Minelli discloses a structural component (2) for use in a building structure ([0029]), including an internal cavity (9), defined by a component-based cavity-defining internal wall configuration (4, 5, 12, 23) comprising low emissivity material (6; [0041] disclosing properties thereof consistent with [0021] of Applicant’s specification) disposed within the cavity (6) such that the low emissivity material (6) defines a surface (of 6) within the cavity (9).
Re claim 39, Minelli discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 1; wherein: at least a portion of a surface (of 12a) of the component-based cavity-defining internal wall configuration (4, 5, 12, 23) is defined by the low-emissivity material (6), such that the definition of a surface (of 12) within the cavity (9) includes definition of at least a portion of a surface (of 12) of the component-based cavity-defining internal wall configuration (4, 5, 12, 23) by the low emissivity material (6).
Re claim 40, Minelli discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 39; wherein: the component-based cavity-defining internal wall configuration defines a total surface area of SAWG, and at least 50% of the total surface area is defined by low-emissivity material (as this is an “or” clause”) or wherein the component-based cavity-defining internal wall configuration (4, 5, 12, 23) includes the low emissivity material (6) and a wall configuration substrate (12), and the low emissivity material (6) is disposed on the wall configuration substrate (12) or wherein the low emissivity material that is disposed on the wall configuration substrate is adhered to the substrate material and further wherein the adherence of the low emissivity material to the wall configuration substrate is obtained by coating of a low emissivity precursor material on the wall configuration substrate (as this is an “or” clause).
Re claim 41, Minelli discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 1; wherein: the disposition of the low emissivity material (6) within the cavity (9) includes disposition of an insert (7) within the cavity (9) such that the definition of a surface (of 7) within the cavity (9) includes definition by a surface (of 7) of the insert (7).
Re claim 42, Minelli discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 41; wherein: the disposition of the insert (7) within the cavity (9) includes a coupling (at 7a) of the composite insert (7) to the component-based cavity-defining internal wall configuration (4, 5, 12, 23).
Re claim 43, Minelli discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 41; wherein: the coupling (at 7a) is established based on an interference fit relationship (Fig. 1) between the composite insert (7) and the component-based cavity-defining internal wall configuration (4, 5, 12, 23).
Re claim 54, Minelli discloses a composite insert (12, 6) for emplacement within a cavity (9) of a frame member (2) of a structural component (2 being a frame) for use in a building structure ([0029]), comprising low emissivity material (6) that is coupled to (Fig. 1) a substrate material (12).
Re claim 55, Minelli discloses the composite insert as claimed in claim 54; wherein: the low emissivity material is adhered to the substrate material (as this is an “or” clause) or wherein at least a portion (of 12) of the surface (of 12) of the insert (12) is defined by (Fig. 1) low emissivity material (6), but fails to disclose the low emissivity material defines at least 50% of the total surface area of the composite or wherein: the insert has a minimum thickness of at least 21.5/1000 of an inch (as this is an “or” clause) or wherein the insert has a minimum thickness of less than, or equal to, 70/1000 of an inch (as this is an “or” clause) or wherein the low emissivity material includes a layer of low emissivity layer coupled to the substrate, and the layer has a minimum thickness of at least 1.5/1000 of an inch (as this is an “or” clause) or wherein the insert (12) is in the form of a strip (12) or wherein the substrate material (12) includes plastic material ([0050]). Or wherein the composite insert is deformable (as this is an “or” clause) or wherein the low emissivity material (6) has an emissivity of less than 0.5 ([0017]),
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 composite insert of Minelli the low emissivity material defines at least 50% of the total surface area of the composite 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).
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) 44, 46-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minelli et al (“Minelli”) (US 20190145155) in view of Ensinger (US 2003/0035910).
Re claim 44, Minelli discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 41; but fails to disclose wherein: the insert includes composite material; and the composite material includes low emissivity material that is coupled to a substrate material.
However, Ensinger discloses wherein: the insert (10) includes composite material ([0028]; 14/16).
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 Minelli wherein: the insert includes composite material as disclosed by Ensinger in order to reduce weight without a significant loss in rigidity ([0042]).
In addition, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural component of Minelli wherein the composite material includes low emissivity material that is coupled to a substrate material in order to reduce heat transfer at the insert. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts (such as providing 6 of Minelli to 7 of Minelli as well) is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 46, Minelli discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 44; wherein: at least a portion (of 7) of the surface (of 7) of the insert (7) is defined by low emissivity material (6, as duplicated above); but fails to disclose the low emissivity material defines at least 50% of the total surface area of the composite 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 Minelli wherein the low emissivity material defines at least 50% of the total surface area of the composite 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, Minelli discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 44; wherein: the component-based cavity-defining internal wall configuration (4, 5, 12, 23) defines a total surface area of SA1WG (Fig. 1), and the insert (7) includes at least a surface portion (of 7), that is defined by (as duplicated above) low emissivity material (6), that has a total surface area of SALEM (as duplicated above, 6 on 7 would have a surface area), 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 Minelli 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 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 50, Minelli discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 44; but fails to disclose wherein: the disposition of the low emissivity material within the cavity is such that there is an absence of definition of any portion of the surface of the frame counterpart cavity-defining internal wall configuration by the low-emissivity material (in essence, claiming the low emissivity material on all internal walls thereof).
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural component of Minelli wherein: the disposition of the low emissivity material within the cavity is such that there is an absence of definition of any portion of the surface of the frame counterpart cavity-defining internal wall configuration by the low-emissivity material in order to further reduce heat transfer. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 51, Minelli discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 44; wherein: the low emissivity material includes a layer of low emissivity layer coupled to the substrate, and the layer has a minimum thickness of at least 1.5/1000 of an inch (as this is an “or” clause) or wherein the low emissivity material, of the insert, and the component-based cavity-defining internal wall configuration are co-operatively configured such that the air space is defined by a space extending from the insert to the component-based cavity-defining internal wall configuration (as this an “or” clause) or wherein: the low emissivity material (6) has an emissivity of less than 0.5 ([0041]).
Re claim 52, Minelli discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 44; wherein: the minimum thickness of the insert is at least 21.5/1000 of an inch (as this is an “or” clause) or wherein the minimum thickness of the insert is less than, or equal to, 70/1000 of an inch(as this is an “or” clause) or wherein the insert (7) is in the form of a strip (Fig. 1).
Re claim 53, Minelli discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 44; wherein: the structural component (2) is one of the frame counterparts (2) of a window (1).
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minelli et al (“Minelli”) (US 20190145155) in view of Ensinger (US 2003/0035910) and Booth (GB2413145).
Re claim 45, Minelli as modified discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 44, wherein: the low emissivity material (6) is connected to the substrate material (12), but fails to disclose connection by adhesion.
However, Booth discloses connection (of 32) by adhesion (Page 5 lines 4-17).
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 Minelli with connection by adhesion as disclosed by Booth in order to tool-lessly and permanently connect the low emissivity material to the substrate.
Claim(s) 50 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minelli et al (“Minelli”) (US 20190145155) in view of Ensinger (US 2003/0035910) and Hallenstvet et al (“Hallenstvet”) (US 2008/0086973).
Re claim 50 in the alternative, Minelli discloses the structural component as claimed in claim 44; but fails to disclose wherein: the disposition of the low emissivity material within the cavity is such that there is an absence of definition of any portion of the surface of the frame counterpart cavity-defining internal wall configuration by the low-emissivity material (in essence, claiming the low emissivity material on all internal walls thereof).
However, Hallenstvet discloses wherein: the disposition of the low emissivity material ([0037]) within the cavity (within 1) is such that there is an absence of definition of any portion of the surface of the frame counterpart cavity-defining internal wall configuration (of 1) by the low-emissivity material (in essence, claiming the low emissivity material on all internal walls thereof) (([0023] and [0037] discloses that all inte4rior surfaces have low emissivity).
It would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural component of Minelli wherein: the disposition of the low emissivity material within the cavity is such that there is an absence of definition of any portion of the surface of the frame counterpart cavity-defining internal wall configuration by the low-emissivity material as disclosed by Hallenstvet in order to further reduce heat transfer. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Claim(s) 56-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padiyath et al (“Padiyath”) (US 20190145155) in view of Etienne (US 2014/0311097).
Re claim 56, Padiyath discloses a multiple insert source material including a composite material (Fig. 1), comprising: low emissivity material (102-116) that is coupled to (Fig. 1) a substrate material (100) such that the low emissivity material (102-116) defines at least a portion (Fig. 1) of a surface (surface of 102-116) of the source material (102-116);
but fails to disclose wherein: the surface is scored such that one or more portions of the source material is detachable from the source material, such that, detachment of one portion from the source material is with effect that: (i) the detached portion has at least a surface portion that is defined by low emissivity material, and (ii) a remaining portion of the multiple-insert source material is obtained, wherein the remaining portion has a surface portion that is defined by low emissivity material.
However, Etienne discloses wherein: the surface (of 10) is scored ([0027]) such that one or more portions (of 10) of the source material (10) is detachable from ([0027]) the source material (10), such that, detachment of ([0027]) one portion from the source material (10) is with effect that: (i) the detached portion (of 10) has at least a surface portion (surface of 10) that is defined by low emissivity material (Padiyath: 102-116), and (ii) a remaining portion (of 10) of the multiple-insert source material (10) is obtained ([0027]), wherein the remaining portion (of 10) has a surface portion (of 10) that is defined by low emissivity material (Padiyath: 102-116).
It would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multiple insert source material of Padiyath wherein: the surface is scored such that one or more portions of the source material is detachable from the source material, such that, detachment of one portion from the source material is with effect that: (i) the detached portion has at least a surface portion that is defined by low emissivity material, and (ii) a remaining portion of the multiple-insert source material is obtained, wherein the remaining portion has a surface portion that is defined by low emissivity material as disclosed by Etienne in order to allow for easy removal at desired intervals ([0027]).
Re claim 57, Padiyath as modified discloses the multiple insert source material as claimed in claim 56; wherein: the multiple-insert source material (Fig. 1) is in the form of a sheet (Fig. 1; [0036]) or wherein the sheet has a thickness that is less than, or equal to, 70/1000 of an inch (as this is an “or” clause) or wherein and wherein the low emissivity material (102-116) has an emissivity of less than 0.5 ([0038]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
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