PANELS

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 . Examiner Notes Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-2, 10-13, and 15 have been amended and claims 16-20 are newly added. 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. Claims 1-4, 7-9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 5,007,226) and further in view of Cornell (US 9,145,671). Regarding claims 1 and 15, Nelson discloses an insulated panel for kitchen appliances (column 1, lines 5-10). The panel comprising a frame (Fig. 5), at least one insulation panel (Fig., 4 and 6-7), and a cover panel (Fig. 3). The frame comprising a plurality of frame elements including first and second opposing faces, and one or more edge faces which extend between the first and second opposing faces and joined together to form the frame (Fig. 5). The edge faces of the frame define a housing aperture (63). The cover panel and insulation panel having first and second opposing faces (Fig. 3-4, 6-7). The frame being fixed to the cover panel with the first face of the frame adjacent to the second face of the cover panel (column 7, lines 35-40). The housing aperture (63) configured to receive the at least one insulation panel with the first face of the at least one insulation panel fixed to the second face of the cover panel (Fig. 2, column 6, lines 25-45). Please note, the recitation in the claims that the panel is “for use in the construction of a galley of an aircraft” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Nelson discloses a panel as presently claimed, it is clear that the panel of Nelson would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. for use in the construction of a galley of an aircraft, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP. Nelson does not teach at least one of the frame elements is formed from a hollow elongate section. Cornell, in the analogous field of construction panels (column 1, lines 5-10) teaches a modular housing framing system wherein the frame elements are hollow elongate tubes (column 3, lines 45-50). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the frame elements of Nelson to include hollow elongate tubes, as taught by Cornell, providing for weight reduction (column 3, lines 40-45). Regarding claim 2, the housing aperture (63) is of substantially the same configuration as the at least one insulation panel when arranged side by side or stacked (Fig. 2, column 6, lines 25-35). Regarding claim 3, given Nelson teaches the insulation panel fitting within the frame (Fig. 2), Nelson teaches distance x is less than distance y or distance x is equal to distance y as claimed in claim 3. Regarding claim 4, Nelson teaches the connection by threaded holes and fasteners (column 7, lines 35-40). Regarding claims 5 and 6, Nelson teaches the frame fixed to the cover. As the insulation panel is housed within the frame it would also be fixed to the panel (e.g., Fig. 2); the fixing means includes a fastener (column 7, lines 35-40). Nelson does not expressly teach the fastener including a burr fastener however teaches a threaded fastener (column 6, lines 40-45). As a burr fastener is a type of threaded fastener it would have been an obvious choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made. Regarding claim 7, Nelson teaches the insulation panel housed in the frame and the distance form the second face of the cover panel to the second face of the insulation panel is less than the distance of the second face of the cover panel to the second face of the frame (Fig. 2). Regarding claim 8, Nelson teaches the frame having a plu8railty of frame elements (e.g., top, bottom, and sides) which are joined together to form the frame (fig. 5). Regarding claim 9, Nelson teaches the frame including a structural panel (outer panel 29) having first and second opposing face and fixed to the frame with the first face of the structural panel adjacent to the second face of the frame (Fig. 5). Regarding claim 12, Nelson teaches that an optional construction for the frame is forming it around and encasing the laminated panels of the insulation panel (column 6, lines 10-20). So, in the embodiment where there are a plurality of insulation panels (e.g., Fig. 6) each housing aperture of the frame would be configured to receive two of the plurality of insulation panels. Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Cornell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cur et al. (US 2010/0287974). Regarding claim 6, Nelson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Nelson does not teach the insulation panels fixed with a releasable adhesive or double-sided adhesive tape as claimed. Cur, in the analogous field of insulated panels (0001), teaches the insulation panel held to a cover panel with adhesive strips (81; doubled-sided adhesive tape). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the fixing means to include a double-sided adhesive tape as taught by Cur, to old the insulation panel to the cover panel (0037, Fig. 10A). Regarding claim 13, Nelson does not teach the insulation panel being an vacuum insulation panel. Cur teaches the insulation panel including vacuum insulation panels (0033). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the insulation panels of Nelson to include vacuum insulation panels as taught by Cur, providing versatility in the efficiency of the refrigerator (0034). Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Cornell as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gidseg et al. (US 5,048,233). Regarding claims 10 and 11, Nelson discloses the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. While Nelson teaches the outer panel is integral with the frame, Nelson does not teach at least one mechanical fastener which is configured to be operable from the second face of the outer panel. Gidseg, in the analogous field of insulated panels (column 3, lines 20-25), teaches a frame (10) and inner and outer panels (16,18) (Fig. 1). Gidseg teaches that mechanical fixing means may be used to connect the panels to the frame (column 4, lines 60-65). Gidseg teaches the decorative panel concealing the screw (column 7, lines 30-35) and thus allowing for the fixing means to be operable from the second face of the panel as claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filling date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the outer panel to be mechanically attached to a frame and for the fixing means to be operable from the second face as taught by Gidseg, to secure the layers together (column 4, lines 60-65). Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Cornell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Siegrist et al. (US 4,536,990). Regarding claim 14, Nelson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Nelson does not disclose a material of the inner door panel. Siegrist, in the analogous field of insulated panels for aircraft galleys (column 1, lines 10-20), teaches a refrigerator/freezer (11) comprising cabinet (12) and mounted door (13). The door comprising front a rear panels (64, 66) made of molded fiberglass reinforced plastic (column 7, lines 5-10). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the inner door panel of Nelson to be formed of glass fiber reinforced plastic as taught by Siegrist, providing a door which is light weight but rigid and strong (column 3, lines 30-35). Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Cornell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0109172). Regarding claim 16, modified Nelson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Nelson does not provide a material for the frame elements. Kim, in the analogous field of insulated panels (0003), discloses a refrigerator comprising a frame unit (200, 300) formed of polycarbonate (0071). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for at least one of the frame elements of modified Nelson to include polycarbonate material, as taught by Kim, as the material has excellent durability and a small heat transfer coefficient (0071). Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Cornell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Antonic (US 2007/0193143). Regarding claims 17-18, modified Nelson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Nelson does not teach at least two frame elements joined by a corner element, where the corner element is configured to extend into a portion of an inner void of each of the at least two frame elements. Antonic, in the analogous field construction panels (0001) discloses a wall assembly comprising corner posts (instant corner elements), which extend into an inner void of each wall sheet (Fig. 7, 0054). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the frame elements of modified Nelson to be joined by a corner element which extend into a portion of an inner void of each of the at least two frame elements, as taught by Antonic, as a meat to connect two adjacent frame elements (0005). Regarding claim 19, while Antonic teaches the corner elements formed in as a block (Fig. 1, 2), Antonic does not teach the material being aluminum. Cornell teaches that frame elements, including corner pieces may be fabricated from light weight material such as aluminum (column 13, lines 65 through column 14, line3). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the block corner element of modified Nelson to include aluminum as taught by Cornell, to further reduce weight and aid in east of manipulation during construction and reduce shipping and manufacturing costs (column 14, line 1-3). Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Cornell in view of Cur as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Schalla et al. (US 2019/0375508). Regarding claim 20, modified Nelson discloses the limitation of claim 13 as discussed above. Modified Nelson does not disclose the at least one vacuum insulation panel is a microporous vacuum insulation panel made form fumed silica. Schalla, in the analogous field of aircraft galleys (0001), teaches a vacuum insulative core formed a porous material such as fumed silica (0040). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed Response to Arguments comprise a microporous vacuum insulation panel made form fumed silica as taught by Schalla, to thermal insulation (0039). Response to Arguments Applicant’s amendments filed 08/03/2026 have been entered. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the new combination of prior art. Correspondence 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 ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4. 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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. /ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781