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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7-9, 11, 13-16 & 18-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,782,046 (hereafter ‘046) in view of Matthews et al. (US 5,953,818; hereafter Matthews).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of ‘046 discloses a duct liner insulation for a curvilinear duct, comprising: an insulation board have an outer liner surface (second major surface configured to extend around an inner periphery of a curvilinear duct) and an inner gas stream surface (first major surface configured to be a gas stream surface), wherein: the inner gas stream surface defines a plurality of kerfs; each kerf of the plurality of kerfs has a V-shaped transverse cross-section with sidewalls extending from a base of the kerf to the inner gas stream surface; and opposing sidewalls of each kerf extend at an angle between 11 degrees and 19 degrees relative to each other.
Regarding claim 2, the claims of ‘046 do not explicitly recited the composition of the insulation board, however, Matthews teaches that such an insulation board may comprise at least one of a fibrous material, cellular foam, or mineral wool (col. 4, lines 37-44) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the insulation board from at least one of these materials, especially considering that 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, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 3-6, claim 7 of ‘046 recites a facing on the gas stream surface (first major surface). Matthews teaches that “preferably, the gas stream surface has a coating or facing 26”, which may be “a polymeric coating, a non-combustible foil facing, a synthetic polymer film, a metallic foil composite, or a treated non-woven mat”, to improve the performance of the board and/or to permit regular maintenance or cleaning of the ducts (col. 4). Matthews further teaches that the coating may be applied before the kerfing operations so that, as shown in fig. 7, the kerfs extend through the coating (26).
If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide one or both of a coating or facing covering the gas stream surface (as in claim 3), wherein the coating may be a polymeric coating (as in claim 4) applied before kerfing, such that the plurality of kerfs extend through the coating (as in claim 5), and wherein the facing comprises at least one of a non-combustible foil facing, a synthetic polymer film, a metallic foil composite, or a treated non-woven mat (as in claim 6), each as suggested by Matthews, so as to improve the performance or permit regular maintenance of the inner surface of the duct liner as suggested.
Regarding claims 7 & 8, claim 8 of ‘046 recites the second major surface (outer liner surface) comprising a facing. Matthews teaches that such a facing (28) for an outer liner surface may be a moisture barrier facing and, in particular, a foil-scrim-kraft facing, coupled with the outer liner surface (col. 5, lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the facing of the outer liner layer as a moisture barrier facing coupled with the outer liner surface (as in claim 7) and, in particular, a foil-scrim-kraft facing (as in claim 8), in view of the teachings of Matthews, to prevent the buildup of moisture between the outer liner surface and an outer metal shell forming the duct, as suggested by Matthews.
Regarding claim 9, Matthews further teaches that the depths of the kerfs may range from about 70% to 90% of the thickness of the insulation board (col. 5, lines 51-59), which overlaps the claimed range of between 85% and 95%. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05(I), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Furthermore, Matthews suggests that the depth may be adjusted to control the flexibility of the board (col. 8, lines 54-66). See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 10, claim 1 of ‘046 discloses that the insulation board is has a length, width, and thickness (i.e., a planar configuration, as a board) and is foldable into a curvilinear configuration via the kerfs. In view of the specification of ‘046, this would be understood as describing the function wherein the insulation board is movable between a planar configuration and a curvilinear configuration in which the plurality of kerfs are compressed and the inner gas stream surface defines an outer boundary for a gas flow path which, as understood, is the intended use of the claimed duct liner insulation. Claims 11, 13 & 15 further define the curvilinear duct to be a round or flat oval duct.
However, to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that this feature / usage is also depicted in figs. 1, 4 & 5 of Matthews (see planar configuration in fig. 1 vs. curvilinear configuration in figs 4 & 5).
Regarding claims 11 & 12, Matthews further teaches that the v-shaped kerfs comprise shoulders (e.g., corresponding to 57 in figs. 6, 6A) on opposing sides of the kerf and, in the curvilinear configuration (i.e., as in figs. 8A, 9A), the shoulders of each kerf contact one another. When v-shaped kerfs are used, as in fig. 8, Matthews explains that in the curvilinear configuration, opposing sidewalls (74, 76) of the kerfs abut one another such that no, or substantially no air space is formed in the insulation board (see fig. 8A)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the duct liner insulation such that each kerf comprises shoulders on opposing sides of the kerf; and in the curvilinear configuration, the shoulders of each kerf contact one another (as in claim 11), wherein in the curvilinear configuration, opposing sidewalls of each kerf abut one another such that no or substantially no air space is formed in the insulation board (as in claim 12), in view of the teachings of Matthews, so that the inner gas stream surface does not comprise openings into the kerfs when in the curvilinear configuration, as suggested by Matthews.
Regarding claim 13, Matthews further teaches that the v-shaped kerfs may be provided with a truncated base (fig. 9), whereby opposing sidewalls of each kerf are spaced apart from one another at a base of the kerf.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the duct liner insulation such that opposing sidewalls of each kerf are spaced apart from one another at a base of the kerf, in view of the teachings of Matthews, to ensure that the shoulders of the kerfs can be sufficiently compressed at the inner gas surface to close the kerf, especially when some air space in the insulation, separate from gas flow path, is not an issue.
Regarding claim 14, claim 9 of ‘046 recites that the thickness of the insulation is from 1 to 3 inches, overlapping the claimed range of between 1 and 4 inches. Matthews also teaches that insulation typically ranges from “about one inch to about four inches” (col. 5, lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 15, claim 3 of ‘046 recites a “lower base width” of the kerfed segments formed between kerfs as ranging from 0.6 to 1.6 inches. This “lower base width” of the kerfed segments between kerfs corresponds to the distance between bases of adjacent kerfs.
Regarding claim 16, while the claims of ‘046 do not recited a specific kerf with, claims 18-23 recite formulas for determining the dimensions of the kerfs, including a dimension C which is equal to ½ the kerf width at the gas stream opening (the widest point).
As previously mentioned Matthews teaches that insulation boards typically range from 1 to 4 inches. In view of the range of angles of 11 degrees to 19 degrees set forth in claim 1, applying these angles to the range of typical thicknesses, the corresponding range of kerf widths would reasonably range from .193 inches (11 degrees at 1” thickness; c = 0.096) to 1.34 inches (19 degrees at 4” thickness; c = 0.67), which encompasses the claimed range of between 0.45 and 0.85 inches. To further illustrate, a width of 0.45 corresponds to an angle of 12.8° in a 2” board, and a width of 0.85 corresponds to an angle of 16.13° in a 3” board.
If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the duct liner insulation to have any reasonable kerf width at the inner gas stream surface, including values between 0.45 inches and 0.85 inches, as may be required for a particular application, as a matter of routine engineering design, especially when considering that such values fall within the range of kerf widths which would result from using the claimed range of kerf angles (11 to 19 degrees) with insulation boards of typical thickness (i.e., 1 to 4 inches), and further obvious when considering that Matthews explicitly teaches that the flexibility of an insulation board may be controlled by selecting “the depths and/or widths of and/or spacing between the kerfs” in the gas stream surface (col. 8, lines 54-57).
Regarding claim 17, Matthews teaches (e.g., figs. 1-3) that the kerfs extend along an entire length of the inner gas stream surface. If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plurality of kerfs to extend along the entire length of the inner gas stream surface so that the entire length of the duct insulation board can be folded into the curvilinear duct shape.
Regarding claim 18, claim 13 of ‘046 recites that the curvilinear duct comprises a flat oval duct, and claim 15 (depending from claim 13) recites that the insulation board comprises kerfed and unkerfed segments, the kerfed segments configured to line the round portions of the flat oval duct and the unkerfed segments configured to like the flat portions. As the flat and round portions of a flat oval duct alternate around the perimeter, this configuration reads on the limitation wherein the insulation board comprises alternating kerfed regions and unkerfed regions. See also figs. 4 & 5 of Matthews.
Regarding claim 19, with respect to the limitation wherein the insulation board is movable between a planar configuration and a curvilinear configuration in which the plurality of kerfs are compressed and the inner gas stream surface defines an outer boundary of the gas flow path, see discussion provided for claim 10 above.
With respect to the limitation wherein, in the curvilinear configuration, the kerfed regions form rounded portions of the duct liner insulation and the unkerfed regions form planar portions of the duct liner, this substantially corresponds to the limitations recited in claim 15 of ‘046, as discussed for claim 18 above.
Regarding claim 20, claim 16 of ‘046 recites the limitation wherein the kerfed and unkerfed regions (segments) are monolithically formed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews et al. (US 5,953,818; hereafter Matthews) in view of Maybee (US 3,557,840) and/or Lauren (US 4,576,206)(each cited in applicant’s IDS received 14 January 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Matthews discloses (figs. 1-5; incl. modified kerf forms in figs. 8-9A) a duct liner insulation for a curvilinear duct, comprising:
an insulation board (20) have an outer liner surface (24) and an inner gas stream surface (22), wherein:
the inner gas stream surface defines a plurality of kerfs (30; see figs. 1-5);
each kerf of the plurality of kerfs has a V-shaped transverse cross-section (i.e., see modified kerfs with V-shaped cross-section 30C in fig. 8 and 30D in fig. 9) with sidewalls (74, 76 in fig. 8; 80, 82 in fig. 9) extending from a base of the kerf to the inner gas stream surface; and
opposing sidewalls of each kerf extend at an angle (x) relative to each other.
With respect to the limitation wherein the angle is “between 11 degrees and 19 degrees”, Matthews initially discloses that the angle may range from “about 3° to about 10° depending on the thickness of the insulation board and the diameter of the duct or duct liner being formed” (col. 8, lined 45-49). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05(I), a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In the instant case, the disclosed range of “about 3° to about 10°” is clearly close to the claimed range of “between 11 degrees and 19 degrees” (i.e. “about 10° vs 11 degrees)[see In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°)].
Moreover, Matthews further discloses that “the greater the thickness of the insulation board 20 being kerfed, and the greater the diameter of the duct or duct liner being formed from the insulation board, the smaller the included angle X”, and further suggests that the flexibility of an insulation board can be controlled by adjusting the depth, width, and/or spacing of the kerfs (col. 8, lines 49-66).
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood (or otherwise reasonably inferred) that relatively thinner insulation, or relatively smaller diameter ducts, would require a larger included angle X.
To promote compact prosecution, the following additional teachings are provided.
Maybee teaches (fig. 3) an insulation board (20) comprising an inner surface (at 16) and an outer surface (at 14), the inner surface comprising a plurality of kerfs (22) with V-shaped transverse cross-sections, opposing sidewalls of each kerf extending at an angle relative to each other (as shown in fig. 3). Maybee further teaches that this angle may range from “as low as 5° to as great as 90°, with a range of about 15° to 90° sufficient for most installation uses” (col. 4, lines 63-66).
Lauren teaches a curvilinear insulation (fig. 1) formed from an initially planar insulation board / slab (fig. 2) having V-shaped kerfs 2 defined in the inner surface. Lauren explains that the form of the V-shape is chosen to suit a desired diameter upon bending, and provides one example wherein the insulation is 130 mm (~5.1 inches) thick, to form a round shape with a 700mm diameter (27.6 inches), the V-shaped kerfs are provided with a depth of 100mm (3.94 inches), a spacing of 80mm (3.15 inches), and a width of 25mm (0.98 inches)(col. 4, lines 44-49).
Based on these dimensions (i.e., 100mm depth, 25mm width), the angle between the sidewalls of the V-shaped kerf would be approximately 14.25°, within applicant’s claimed range of “between 11 degrees and 19 degrees”.
In view of the above, 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 duct liner insulation of Matthews such that the opposing sidewalls of each kerf extend at any reasonably angle relative to each other, including angles between 11 degrees and 19 degrees (e.g., 14.25° as taught by Lauren) as may be required for a particular application, as a matter of routine engineering design (e.g., based on the desired duct diameter, insulation thickness, flexibility, etc., as suggested by Matthews) and/or otherwise obvious in view of the teachings of Maybee that such an angle may range from 5°-90°, with a range of 15°-90° preferred as sufficient for most uses, considering that it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists [see MPEP § 2144.05(I); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)].
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that, as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art, and as otherwise suggested by GB 391,541 to Hamilton, the required angle of each kerfed section is also predictably a geometric result of the number of sections formed. By way of example, when using 8 kerfed sections to approximate a circle (as in figs. 1-2 of Hamilton), each kerf is formed at about 45°. More sections would require increasing the angle (e.g., 16 sections = 22.5°, 24 sections = 15°, etc.).
Regarding claim 2, Matthews discloses the additional limitation wherein the insulation board comprises at least one of a fibrous material, cellular foam, or mineral wool (col. 4, lines 39-44).
Regarding claim 3, Matthews discloses the additional limitation wherein the duct liner insulation further comprises one or both of a coating and a facing (26) that covers the inner gas stream surface (col. 4, lines 51-57: “preferably, the gas stream surface as a coating or facing 26”).
Regarding claim 4, Matthews discloses the additional limitation wherein the coating comprises a polymeric coating (col. 4, lines 51-62: “a coating or facing 26….such as but not limited to, a polymeric coating…”).
Regarding claim 5, Matthews discloses the additional limitation wherein the plurality of kerfs (30) extend through the coating (26)(see figs. 8 & 9; see also col.4, lines 63-64; the coating can be applied before or after the kerfing operation; if applied before kerfing, the kerfs would extend through the coating as shown).
Regarding claim 6, Matthews discloses the additional limitation wherein the facing comprises at least one of a non-combustible foil facing, a synthetic polymer film, a metallic foil composite, or a treated non-woven mat (col. 4, lines 51-62: “a coating or facing 26….such as but not limited to… a non-combustible foil facing, a synthetic polymer film, a metallic foil composite or a treated, non-woven mat…”).
Regarding claim 7, Matthews discloses the limitation wherein the duct liner insulation comprises a moisture barrier facing (28) coupled with the outer liner surface (col. 5, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 8, Matthews further discloses the limitation wherein the moisture barrier facing (28) comprises a foil-scrim-kraft facing (col. 5, lines 5-7: “a moisture barrier facing 28, such as but not limited to a foil-scrim-kraft facing”).
Regarding claim 9, with respect to the limitation wherein a depth of each of the plurality of kerfs extends to between 85% and 95% of a thickness of the insulation board, Matthews discloses that the depths of each of the plurality of kerfs “preferably range from about 70% to about 90% of the thickness of the insulation boards” (col. 5, lines 54-56), overlapping the claimed range of “between 85% and 95%”.
As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05(I), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 10, the duct liner insulation of Matthews reads on the additional limitation wherein the insulation board (20) is movable between a planar configuration (as shown in fig. 1; and figs. 8, 9, etc.) and a curvilinear configuration in which the plurality of kerfs are compressed and the inner gas stream surface defines an outer boundary for a gas flow path (as shown in figs. 2-5 & figs. 8A & 9A, etc.).
Regarding claim 11, the duct liner insulation of Matthews reads on the additional limitations wherein each kerf comprises shoulders on opposing sides of the kerf (i.e., corresponding to shoulders 57 indicated in fig. 6); and in the curvilinear configuration, the shoulders of each kerf contact one another (as shown in fig. 6A; corresponding configuration with the V-shaped kerf shown in figs. 8A & 9A).
Regarding claim 12, the duct liner insulation of Matthews, when provided with the V-shaped kerfs (30C) shown in fig. 8, reads on the additional limitation wherein in the curvilinear configuration (as shown in fig. 8A), opposing sidewalls (74, 76) of each kerf abut one another such that no or substantially no air space is formed in the insulation board (col. 7, lines 37-43: “the shoulders 79 of the kerf 30c, adjoining the gas stream surface 22 of the insulation board 20, come together and the sidewalls abut along their surfaces so that no air space is formed in the wall of the duct or duct liner”).
Regarding claim 13, the duct liner insulation of Matthews, when provided with the truncated V-shaped kerfs (30D) shown in fig. 9, reads on the additional limitation wherein opposing sidewalls (80, 82) of each kerf are spaced apart from one another at a base of the kerf (see figs. 9 & 9A).
Regarding claim 14, Matthews discloses the additional limitation wherein the insulation board has a thickness of between 1 inch and 4 inches (col. 5, lines 11-13: “[t]he insulation boards 20 are typically about ten feet long by four feet wide or eight feet wide and range in thickness from about one inch to about four inches”).
Regarding claim 15, Matthews discloses or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein a distance between bases of adjacent kerfs is between 0.60 inches and 1.60 inches.
In particular, Matthews explains that when the insulation boards are to be formed into ducts or duct liners “ranging in diameter from about sixteen inches to about thirty inches”, the spacing between the kerfs may be “1.57 inches on centers” (col. 5, lines 33-36). A center-to-center spacing of 1.57 inches corresponds to a distance between bases of 1.57 – kerf width. Thus, any configuration with a kerf width less than 0.97” would fall within the claimed range. In one example, Matthews suggests a kerf width of 3/32” (0.09375”), which would correspond to a spacing between kerfs of 1.48 inches, clearly falling within the claimed range.
Examination Note; to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that Matthews further explains that the spacing of the kerfs is a results-effective variable: placing the kerfs too close will cause the insulation board to lose structural integrity, while spacing the kerfs too far will not provide the required flexibility required to bend the board into the curvilinear duct shape [col. 5, lines 40-50]. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 16, Matthews does not explicitly disclose a width of each kerf at the inner gas stream surface to be between 0.45 inches and 0.85 inches.
However, Matthews does disclose that “the widths of the kerf openings at the gas stream surface must be controlled. If the longitudinally extending openings of the kerfs 30 are too wide at the gas stream surface of the insulation board 20, the openings may not close and the shoulders or the shoulders and other portions of the kerf sidewalls may not be compressed, as preferred, when the insulation board is formed into a tubular configuration of selected dimensions to form a duct or duct liner” (col. 8, lines 31-39).
Matthews further explains: “The flexibility of the insulation boards 20, in the direction of the widths of the insulation boards, may be controlled by the depths and/or the widths of and/or spacing between the kerfs 30 in the gas stream surface 22 of the insulation boards. An insulation board 20 with kerfs of a certain depth and width that are spaced from each other a certain spacing will exhibit a certain flexibility. To make the insulation boards more flexible, the depths of the kerfs 30 can be increased, the widths of the kerfs can be increased and/or the spacing between the kerfs 30 can be decreased. To make the insulation boards less flexible, the depths of the kerfs 30 can be decreased, the widths of the kerfs can be decreased and/or the spacing between the kerfs 30 can be increased.” (col. 8, lines 54-66).
As previously stated for claim 14, Matthews teaches that insulation boards typically range from 1 to 4 inches. In view of the range of angles of 11 degrees to 19 degrees already required by claim 1, applying these angles to the range of typical thicknesses, the corresponding range of kerf widths would reasonably range from .193 inches (11 degrees at 1” thickness) to 1.34 inches (19 degrees at 4” thickness), which encompasses the claimed range of between 0.45 and 0.85 inches. To further illustrate, a width of 0.45 corresponds to an angle of 12.8° in a 2” board, and a width of 0.85 corresponds to an angle of 16.13° in a 3” board.
If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the duct liner insulation to have any reasonable kerf width at the inner gas stream surface, including values between 0.45 inches and 0.85 inches, as may be required for a particular application, as a matter of routine engineering design, especially when considering that such values fall within the range of kerf widths which would reasonably result from using the claimed range of kerf angles (11 to 19 degrees) with insulation boards of typical thickness as taught by Matthews (i.e., 1 to 4 inches), and further obvious when considering that Matthews explicitly teaches that the width of the kerfs at the inner gas stream surface must be controlled so as to ensure the openings are closed when formed into the duct liner and that flexibility of an insulation board may be controlled by selecting “the depths and/or widths of and/or spacing between the kerfs” in the gas stream surface.
Regarding claim 17, Matthews discloses the additional limitation wherein the plurality of kerfs (30) extend along an entire length of the inner gas stream surface (see fig 1; see also col. 5, lines 22-24: “the kerfs 30 extend the length of the insulation board”).
Regarding claim 18, the duct liner insulation of Matthews, in the form shown in figs. 4 & 5 forming a flat oval duct liner, reads on the additional limitation wherein the insulation board comprises alternating kerfed regions (i.e., the round side regions having kerfs 30 as shown) and unkerfed regions (i.e., the flat top and bottom regions which, as shown in figs. 4 & 5, are not kerfed).
Regarding claim 19, the duct liner insulation of Matthews, in the form shown in figs. 4 & 5 forming a flat oval duct liner, reads on the additional limitations wherein the insulation board is movable between a planar configuration (i.e., generally corresponding to the configuration shown in fig. 1) and a curvilinear configuration in which the plurality of kerfs are compressed and the inner gas stream surface defines an outer boundary for a gas flow path (i.e., the flat oval configuration shown in figs. 4 & 5); and
in the curvilinear configuration, the kerfed regions form rounded portions of the duct liner insulation and the unkerfed regions form planar portions of the duct liner insulation (as shown in figs. 4 & 5).
Regarding claim 20, the duct liner insulation of Matthews reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the kerfed regions and the unkerfed regions are monolithically formed.
In particular, Matthews discloses the insulation board (20) may be “a rigid or semi-rigid insulation board comprising a fibrous insulation material…a cellular foam material… or a composite board…” (col. 4, lines 37-44), and discloses forming the kerfs into the insulation board (e.g., as by steel, ceramic, or carbide saw blades), whereupon the board can be folded / bent into the desired duct shape and the lateral edges “taped or otherwise secured” (as in figs. 2 & 4) and the inserted into a metal duct shell (as in figs. 3 & 5). In view of the above, the kerfed and unkerfed regions of the insulation board, as shown in figs. 4 & 5, are reasonably seen as being “monolithically formed” (i.e., they are formed from the same single sheet of rigid or semi-rigid insulation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 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 Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights