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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 112 (see par 0037 and 0043).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the diamond mesh lath (see claims 7, 9, 12, 13, and 20), the protective layer of paper (see claim 8), and a plurality of indicia (see claim 19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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 appears to contain conflicting scope, one being a product and the other a method of making and using the product. Claim 1 appears to claim a “firebrick liner panel device” which provides a prefabricated liner panel which can be installed quickly. The claim further defines that the device comprises “a panel component.” The first portion of the claim appears to be directed to a firebrick liner panel device per se. The claim also states that the panel component of the firebrick liner panel device “is constructed using a planar surface” which appears to be a process of making the panel. Lastly, the claim states that the “panel component is then installed within a fireplace” (emphasis added) which implies a sequence of a method of using the constructed panel component. It is unclear if the claim scope is directed to a liner panel device comprising a panel component per se, a method that includes using a planar surface to construct the panel component and installing in a fireplace, or a combination of the panel component and a fireplace. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as a firebrick liner panel device that includes a panel component being assembled on a planar surface and adapted to be then installed within a fireplace.
Claim 1 recites “a surface” in line 5 of the claim. It is unclear if this is the same surface as the planar surface which was defined in line 4 of the claim or whether it refers to yet another surface.
The term “quickly” in claims 1 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quickly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what standard of time is used to determine whether a liner panel has been be installed “quickly.”
Claim 6 recites that “users fill the recesses with mortar.” This language appears to imply an action to be taken by a user, i.e. a method step. A claim can only be directed to one statutory class of invention and it is unclear if the claim is directed to a product or a method.
Claims 9 and 13 recite that the “user with a trowel adds and approximately 0.25 mortar bed.” This language appears to imply an action to be taken by a user, i.e. a method step. A claim can only be directed to one statutory class of invention and it is unclear if the claim is directed to a product or a method.
Claims 10 and 14 recites “as required by code.” It is unclear as to what code is being referred and the standards which the code requires. Therefore, the scope of the claim in indefinite.
Claim 11 appears to contain conflicting scope. Claims 1-10 from which claim 11 depends appear to be directed to a product, yet claim 11 appears to further define a method step of curing before tilting vertically and separating from the cement board for adhesion to the fireplace.
Claim 12 appears to contain conflicting scope, one being a product and the other a method of making and using the product. Claim 12 states “A firebrick liner panel device…the method comprising the following steps.” Despite the preamble introducing the method steps, the claim does not set forth any method steps, but instead merely describes the structure of the firebrick liner panel device. The claim also states that the panel component “is constructed using a planar surface” which appears to be a process of making the panel. Lastly, the claim states that the “panel component is then installed within a fireplace” (emphasis added) which implies a sequence of a method of using the panel component. It is unclear if the claim scope is directed to a liner panel device comprising a panel component per se, a method that includes using a planar surface to construct the panel component, or a combination of the panel component and a fireplace. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as a firebrick liner panel that includes a panel component being assembled on a cement board and adapted to be then, i.e. later, installed within a fireplace.
The terms “easy” or “easily” in claims 12 and 15 are a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term easy/easily is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what standard could be used to determine whether it would be “easy” to install or “easily” installed.
The term “minimal” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to how many days, weeks, months, or years of experience would qualify as “minimal” mason experience.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the multiple panel components" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “conventionally” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “conventionally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what would constitute as a “conventionally” bricked fireplace wall.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the joint spaces" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the mesh" in line 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remainder of the claims are rejected as a result of dependency from the claims enumerated above.
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) 1-7 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3816364 to Cool et al. (“Cool”) in view of GB 2407828 to Gudgeon (“Gudgeon”). All reference numerals and paragraph numbers are made with respect to Cool unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Cool discloses a liner panel device, capable of use as a firebrick liner panel device, that provides a user with a prefabricated liner panel, the firebrick liner panel device comprising: a panel component 2 (fire-resistant panel 2); wherein the panel component is constructed using a surface (surface of mold; par 0038), with a plurality of bricks 6 positioned on a surface (par 0038); wherein mortar 10 is applied to the plurality of bricks (par 0038); and further wherein the panel component is then adapted to be installed within a fireplace.
Cool does not expressly disclose that the surface of the mold is planar nor that the fire-resistant cladding/brick 6 is made of firebrick.
Gudgeon discloses a mold with a planar surface (Gudgeon, 2) on which a brick prefabricated panel is constructed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the liner panel device of Cool to have the surface of the mold be planar taught in Gudgeon with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably provide a level surface for assembling the panel. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use firebrick instead of the bricks 6, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Firebrick would provide improved fire-resistance for the panel.
Regarding claim 2, Cool in view of Gudgeon does not disclose that the planar surface is a cement board. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a cement board, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 3, Cool in view of Gudgeon discloses that the plurality of firebrick 6 are arranged in a pattern over the cement board.
Regarding claim 4, Cool in view of Gudgeon does not disclose that spacers are positioned in between the plurality of firebricks to create an even separation of the plurality of firebricks.
Gudgeon discloses that spacers (Gudgeon 11) are positioned in between a plurality of bricks to create an even separation of the plurality of bricks.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the liner panel device of Cool to have spacers are positioned in between the plurality of bricks to create an even separation of the plurality of bricks as taught in Gudgeon with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably provide even spacing between bricks.
Regarding claim 5, Cool in view of Gudgeon discloses that the spacers are utilized to create recesses between the plurality of firebricks.
Regarding claim 6, Cool in view of Gudgeon discloses that the recesses are filled with mortar.
Regarding claim 7, Cool in view of Gudgeon discloses a sheet of diamond mesh lath 18 (Fig. 9C) is positioned over the plurality of firebricks and mortar.
Regarding claim 12, Cool discloses firebrick liner panel device that provides a user with a prefabricated liner panel, comprising: a panel component 2 (fire-resistant panel 2); a board (base of mold; par 0038); wherein the panel component is constructed using the board, with a plurality of bricks 6 positioned on a surface of the board (par 0038); wherein mortar 10 is applied to the recesses (par 0038); wherein a sheet of diamond mesh lath 18 (Fig. 9C) is positioned over the plurality of bricks and mortar 10 is applied over the sheet of diamond mesh lath (par 0038); wherein the panel component is then adapted to be installed within a fireplace; and further wherein the panel component is adapted to be installed in even set of bricks within the fireplace.
Cool does not expressly disclose that the board is a cement board, that the fire-resistant cladding/brick 6 is made of firebrick, and spacers that are positioned in between the plurality of firebricks to create an even separation and recesses between the plurality of firebricks;
Gudgeon discloses that spacers (Gudgeon 11) are positioned in between a plurality of bricks to create an even separation of the plurality of bricks.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the liner panel device of Cool to have spacers are positioned in between the plurality of bricks to create an even separation of the plurality of bricks as taught in Gudgeon with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably provide even spacing between bricks. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use firebrick instead of the bricks 6, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Firebrick would provide improved fire-resistance for the panel. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a cement board, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 13, Cool in view of Gudgeon does not disclose an approximately 0.25” mortar bed over the sheet of diamond mesh lath. It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 14, Cool in view of Gudgeon discloses that the panel component has a thickness of 1.38 inches (35mm; Cool par 0026 discloses a thickness of 35mm which is about 1.38 inches) which falls within a range where a maximum thickness of one and half inches but no less than 1.25 inches thick.
Regarding claim 15, Cool in view of Gudgeon discloses that multiple panel components can be prepared by the user then easily installed on the fireplace.
Regarding claim 16, Cool in view of Gudgeon discloses that installation of the multiple panel components can be performed by a user with minimal mason experience.
Regarding claim 17, Cool in view of Gudgeon discloses that after installation of the multiple panel components, spaces between adjacent firebricks of adjacent panel components are filled with mortar to complete installation, and to render the fireplace wall indistinguishable from a conventionally bricked fireplace wall.
Regarding claim 18, Cool in view of Gudgeon discloses that the panel components may be made in different sizes and shapes to fit a variety of fireplace walls to be lined.
Regarding claim 19, Cool in view of Gudgeon discloses a plurality of indicia 28.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cool in view of Gudgeon as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,765,104 to Boot (“Boot”). All reference numerals and paragraph numbers are made with respect to Cool unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 8, Cool in view of Gudgeon does not disclose that the cement board is treated with a protective layer of paper with a release agent, thus enabling the protective layer of paper to be peeled away when applied to the fireplace.
Boot discloses a brick panel construction wherein a planar surface (Boot 10) on which the panel is molded is treated with a protective layer of paper (Boot 12) with a release agent (Boot; col 3, ln 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the liner panel device of Cool to have the cement board treated with a protective layer of paper with a release agent, thus enabling the protective layer of paper to be peeled as taught in Gudgeon with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably facilitate release from a work surface.
Regarding claim 9, Cool in view of Gudgeon and Boot does not disclose an approximately 0.25” mortar bed over the sheet of diamond mesh lath 18. It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 10, Cool in view of Gudgeon and Boot discloses that the panel component has a thickness of 1.38 inches (35mm; Cool par 0026 discloses a thickness of 35mm which is about 1.38 inches) which falls within a range where a maximum thickness of one and half inches but no less than 1.25 inches thick.
Regarding claim 11, Cool in view of Gudgeon and Boot discloses that the panel component is cured (par 0038) sufficiently before tilting vertically and separating from the cement board for adhesion to the fireplace.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB2149498 to Mclaughlin (“Mclaughlin”) in view of Cool and Gudgeon. All reference numerals and paragraph numbers are made with respect to Mclaughlin unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 20, Mclaughlin discloses a method of expediting firebrick liner installation in fireplaces, the method comprising the following steps: installing a panel component (14; made in a variety of sizes, see pg 1, lns 62-69) within a fireplace; but does not disclose providing a firebrick liner panel device comprising a panel component constructed in a variety of sizes; positioning a plurality of bricks in a pattern on a cement board; placing spacers between the bricks to create even separation; filling the joint spaces with mud; laying a sheet of diamond mesh lath over the bricks; adding a mud bed over the mesh and letting it dry.
Cool discloses providing a firebrick liner panel device comprising a panel component 2 (fire-resistant panel 2); positioning a plurality of bricks 6 (par 0038) in a pattern on a board (base of mold; par 0038); filling the joint spaces with mud; laying a sheet of diamond mesh lath 18 (Fig. 9C) over the bricks; adding a mud bed 10 over the mesh and letting it dry.
Gudgeon discloses that spacers (Gudgeon 11) are positioned in between a plurality of bricks to create an even separation of the plurality of bricks.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the liner panel device of Mclaughtlin to have a firebrick liner panel device comprising a panel component constructed in a variety of sizes; positioning a plurality of bricks in a pattern on a cement board; placing spacers between the bricks to create even separation; filling the joint spaces with mud; laying a sheet of diamond mesh lath over the bricks; adding a mud bed over the mesh and letting it dry as taught in Cool with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably provide a rigid prefabricated panel to facilitate installation. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the liner panel device of Mclaughlin to have spacers are positioned in between the plurality of bricks to create an even separation of the plurality of bricks as taught in Gudgeon with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably provide even spacing between bricks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T CAJILIG whose telephone number is (571)272-8143. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/CHRISTINE T CAJILIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633