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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cik (US 2012/0006471).
Regarding claim 1, Cik discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 6, a machine, comprising:
a feed assembly (e.g., items 20, 22, 42 in Fig. 1) comprising:
a first upper guide plate (i.e., upper one of the pair items 20) disposed parallel to a first lower guide plate (i.e., lower one of the pair items 20), the first upper guide plate and first lower guide plate defining a first space to receive a continuous paper core sheet (i.e., item 22 in Fig. 1);
a first upper opening in the first upper guide plate, and a first lower opening in the first lower guide plate (see labels in attached annotated Figure I);
a first upper rotary member (i.e., upper one of the pair items 42 in Fig. 6; also see labels in attached annotated Figure II) disposed such that a portion of the first upper rotary member extends through the first upper opening and adjacent to a first portion of the first space ();
a first lower rotary member (i.e., lower one of the pair items 42 in Fig. 6; also see labels in attached annotated Figure II) disposed such that a portion of the first lower rotary member extends through the first lower opening and adjacent to a second portion of the first space;
a restraint assembly (items 30 in Fig., 1) comprising:
a first upper restraint (i.e., upper one of the pair items 30 in Fig. 1) disposed parallel to a first lower restraint (i.e., lower one of the pair items 30 in Fig. 1), the first upper restraint and the first lower restraint defining a second space (i.e., item S1 in Fig. 1; also see label of second space in attached annotated Figure I) configured to receive a first paper layer (i.e., item 32 in Fig, 1) adjacent the first upper restraint; and
a pull assembly (items 46 in Fig. 1) comprising:
a first upper pull rotary member (i.e., upper one of the pair items 46 in Fig. 1) disposed parallel to a first lower pull rotary member (i.e., lower one of the pair items 30 in Fig. 1), the first upper pull rotary member configured to pull the first paper layer from the second space at a first pull rate (i.e., item v1 in Fig. 1),
wherein the first upper rotary member and the first lower rotary member are configured to feed the continuous paper core sheet in a machine direction at a first feed rate (i.e., item v3 in Fig. 1) from the first space adjacent the first paper layer in the second space, such that when the first pull rate is slower than the first feed rate ([0072], lines 1-5 from bottom), the continuous paper core sheet forms a plurality of flexible loops defining a plurality of air channels that extend substantially perpendicular with the machine direction (see labels of attached annotated Figure I).
Cik individually teaches the guide plates and the different locations of the rotary feed members as claimed. Each of these configurations is utilized to improve the production of the insulation parts. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine each of these embodiments into one configuration logically flows from their having been individually taught in the prior art as being known for achieving the same purpose.
PNG
media_image1.png
622
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure I (based in Fig. 1 in the teachings of Cik)
PNG
media_image2.png
617
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure II (based in Fig. 6 in the teachings of Cik)
Regarding claims 2, 3, 4, 5, Cik discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, heaters 48 are opposed to the upper and lower substrates 32, 34 as they enter form 30 ([0071], lines 9-10). Here, the substrate 32 can be considered as the first paper layer. As illustrated in Fig. 2, the fixing of the flutes 24 to the lower and upper paper layers 32, 34 is achieved by use of an adhesive 52 ([0078], lines 5-7). It is noticed that, the heaters 48 and the adhesive 52 are disposed the same location.
Thus, Cik discloses that, the first upper/lower restraint comprises a first/second heater disposed over the first space and configured to heat a first/second adhesive or a first/second coating disposed on the first/second paper layer and the first/second heater is configured to respectively apply heat to the first/second paper layer when the continuous paper core sheet is within the first space to immediately attach the first/second paper layer to the continuous paper core sheet upon contact and flexibly lock the plurality of flexible loops to the first/second paper layer without attaching the plurality of flexible loops to each other.
Regarding claim 6, Cik discloses that, at least the first and second heaters are configured to indirectly heat respective surfaces of the first and second paper layers facing the continuous paper core sheet comprising adhesive by directly heating respective surfaces facing away from the continuous paper core sheet.
It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
Note: In re Pearson 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush 177 USPQ 705, 706 In re Otto et al 136 USPQ 458.
Regarding claim 8, Cik discloses that, a distance between a first upper restraint and a first lower restraint is formed.
In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954)
The court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art recognized need for the adjustment.
Cik discloses the claimed invention except for the distance being adjustable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make adjustable, since it has been held that adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to make the distance adjustable for the purpose of imparting the flexibility of the production.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cik (US 2012/0006471) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Vincent et al. (US 10,357,936).
Regarding claim 7, Cik discloses a cutting apparatus 60 in Fig. 1 ([0076]). However, Cik does not explicitly disclose that a guillotine or rotary knife configured to cut the precut insulation product to a predetermined length to form an insulation product. In the same field of endeavor, insulation panel, Vincent discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 7A or 7B, lateral cutting blade assembly 830 includes one or more blades (e.g., a guillotine style blade) (col. 16, lines 58-62).
The claimed the guillotine or rotary knife configured to cut the precut insulation product to a predetermined length is that the substitution of one known element for another is prima facie obvious IF it yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, something to do with cutting the insulation product comes from Vincent itself.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Cik to cut the insulation product as Vincent teaches that it is known to cut the insulation product by using of a guillotine blade. It has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 10-15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cik (US 2012/0006471).
Regarding claim 10, Cik discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 6, a machine, comprising:
a feed assembly (e.g., items 20, 22, 42 in Fig. 1) comprising:
a first upper guide plate (i.e., upper one of the pair items 20) disposed parallel to a first lower guide plate (i.e., lower one of the pair items 20), the first upper guide plate and first lower guide plate defining a first space to receive a continuous paper core sheet (i.e., item 22 in Fig. 1);
a first upper opening in the first upper guide plate, and a first lower opening in the first lower guide plate (see labels in attached annotated Figure I);
a first upper rotary member (i.e., upper one of the pair items 42 in Fig. 6; also see labels in attached annotated Figure II) disposed such that a portion of the first upper rotary member extends through the first upper opening and adjacent to a first portion of the first space ();
a first lower rotary member (i.e., lower one of the pair items 42 in Fig. 6; also see labels in attached annotated Figure II) disposed such that a portion of the first lower rotary member extends through the first lower opening and adjacent to a second portion of the first space;
a restraint assembly (items 30 in Fig., 1) comprising:
a first upper restraint (i.e., upper one of the pair items 30 in Fig. 1) disposed parallel to a first lower restraint (i.e., lower one of the pair items 30 in Fig. 1), the first upper restraint and the first lower restraint defining a second space (i.e., item S1 in Fig. 1; also see label of second space in attached annotated Figure I) configured to receive a first paper layer (i.e., item 32 in Fig, 1) adjacent the first upper restraint; and
a pull assembly (items 46 in Fig. 1) comprising:
a first upper pull rotary member (i.e., upper one of the pair items 46 in Fig. 1) disposed parallel to a first lower pull rotary member (i.e., lower one of the pair items 30 in Fig. 1), the first upper pull rotary member configured to pull the first paper layer from the second space at a first pull rate (i.e., item v1 in Fig. 1),
wherein the first upper rotary member and the first lower rotary member are configured to feed the continuous paper core sheet in a machine direction at a first feed rate (i.e., item v3 in Fig. 1) from the first space adjacent the first paper layer in the second space, such that when the first pull rate is slower than the first feed rate ([0072], lines 1-5 from bottom), the continuous paper core sheet forms a plurality of flexible loops defining a plurality of air channels (see labels of attached annotated Figure I).
Cik individually teaches the guide plates and the different locations of the rotary feed members as claimed. Each of these configurations is utilized to improve the production of the insulation parts. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine each of these embodiments into one configuration logically flows from their having been individually taught in the prior art as being known for achieving the same purpose.
Regarding claims 11, 12, 13, 14, Cik discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, heaters 48 are apposed to the upper and lower substrates 32, 34 as they enter form 30 ([0071], lines 9-10). Here, the substrate 32 can be considered as the first paper layer. As illustrated in Fig. 2, the fixing of the flutes 24 to the lower and upper paper layers 32, 34 is achieved by use of an adhesive 52 ([0078], lines 5-7). It is noticed that, the heaters 48 and the adhesive 52 are disposed the same location.
Thus, Cik discloses that, the first upper/lower restraint comprises a first/second heater disposed over the first space and configured to heat a first/second adhesive or a first/second coating disposed on the first/second paper layer and the first/second heater is configured to respectively apply heat to the first/second paper layer when the continuous paper core sheet is within the first space to immediately attach the first/second paper layer to the continuous paper core sheet upon contact and flexibly lock the plurality of flexible loops to the first/second paper layer without attaching the plurality of flexible loops to each other.
Regarding claim 15, Cik discloses that, at least the first and second heaters are configured to indirectly heat respective surfaces of the first and second paper layers facing the continuous paper core sheet comprising adhesive by directly heating respective surfaces facing away from the continuous paper core sheet.
It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
Note: In re Pearson 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush 177 USPQ 705, 706 In re Otto et al 136 USPQ 458.
Regarding claim 17, Cik discloses that, a distance between a first upper restraint and a first lower restraint is formed.
In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954)
The court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art recognized need for the adjustment.
Cik discloses the claimed invention except for the distance being adjustable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make adjustable, since it has been held that adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to make the distance adjustable for the purpose of imparting the flexibility of the production.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cik (US 2012/0006471) as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Vincent et al. (US 10,357,936).
Regarding claim 16, Cik discloses a cutting apparatus 60 in Fig. 1 ([0076]). However, Cik does not explicitly disclose that a guillotine or rotary knife configured to cut the precut insulation product to a predetermined length to form an insulation product. In the same field of endeavor, insulation panel, Vincent discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 7A or 7B, lateral cutting blade assembly 830 includes one or more blades (e.g., a guillotine style blade) (col. 16, lines 58-62).
The claimed the guillotine or rotary knife configured to cut the precut insulation product to a predetermined length is that the substitution of one known element for another is prima facie obvious IF it yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, something to do with cutting the insulation product comes from Vincent itself.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Cik to cut the insulation product as Vincent teaches that it is known to cut the insulation product by using of a guillotine blade. It has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 18, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims 1, and 10, respectively, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claims 9, 18, 19, Cik does not disclose that the first upper restraint comprise two or more gaps spaced apart and running in a machine direction and the two or more heaters are disposed within the two or more gaps.
Vincent fails to disclose these features as well.
For claim 20, Cik does not disclose a pair of guide plates integrated with the pair of secondary rotary members.
Vincent fails to disclose these features as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741