DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 8/26/2024. Claims 1-21 are pending and are under consideration.
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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“the second end of the first panel comprises a second longitudinally extending protrusion and the second end of the second panel comprises a second longitudinally extending indentation” (claim 15).
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract recites, “is provided” (line 1). This objection can be overcome by deleting the phrase. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 1-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl, Sr. et al. (US 20070204540) (‘Stahl’) in view of AT 005915 U1 (as provided by applicant) (‘AT ‘915’).
Claim 1, Stahl teaches a system for insulating a curtain wall structure connected to a building structure, the curtain wall structure having framing defined by at least first and second vertically disposed and parallel mullions separated by a mullion distance (note that the claim is drawn to a system for insulating, and does not positively recite a curtain wall structure or a building structure, thus the curtain wall structure including framing defined by first and second mullions, and the building structure are not required), the system comprising:
a curtain wall insulation panel (20; Figs. 2 and 6) having:
a first face (first face of 20; Figs. 2 and 6),
a second face opposite the first face (second face of 20; Figs. 2 and 6),
a material thickness defined between the first face and the second face (material thickness between the first and second faces of 20; Fig. 6),
a first end (first end of 20; Figs. 2 and 6),
a second end opposite the first end (second end of 20; Figs. 2 and 6), and
a first material length defined between the first end and the second end (length between the first and second ends of 20; Figs. 2 and 6); and
wherein the panel is configured to be disposed within the framing 17.
Although Stahl teaches the panel being spandrel insulation [0033], Stahl does not teach the panel comprising first and second panels, the first end of the first panel having a longitudinally extending indentation, and the first end of the second panel having a longitudinally extending protrusion, such that the longitudinally extending protrusion of the second panel is at least partially disposed within the longitudinally extending indentation of the first panel.
However, AT ‘915 teaches fire protection insulating panels (“fire protection panels 1”; AT ‘915 machine translation as provided by applicant) comprising the same material as applicant’s first and second panels (mineral wool; AT ‘915 machine translation as provided by applicant), the panels each comprising a longitudinally extending protrusion 5 that gets disposed within a longitudinally extending recess 4 of an adjacent panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the spandrel insulation comprising a first panel and a second panel, wherein the first panel and the second panel are configured to be disposed within the framing such that a longitudinally extending protrusion of the second panel is at least partially disposed within a longitudinally extending indentation of the first panel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to connect two panels together to span a distance between framing, when the distance is longer than one panel, and/or to make it easier to handle, transport and install shorter panels, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim 2, Stahl further teaches the system preventing migration of flame [0013]. Stahl does not specifically teach the system having a flame rating of at least 2 hours, as measured in accordance with ASTM E2307. Note that ASTM E2307 was treated as a known standard. As such, the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, using known methods with no change in their respective functions to obtain a flame rating of at least 2 hours to meet the claimed standard. Such a combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Stahl’s system to have a flame rating of at least 2 hours, as measured in accordance with ASTM E2307, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known system to meet a known standard.
Claims 3-6, Stahl and AT ‘915 teach all the limitations of claim 1. Stahl further teaches [claim 4] wherein the installed length of the spandrel panel is approximately (note that “approximately” as recited throughout the claims was treated in accordance with the specification and under the plain meaning to mean about or close to, including not necessarily being exact) equal to the mullion distance (Stahl distance between 17 left and 17 right, as viewed in Fig. 2). Stahl does not teach [claim 3] wherein a sum of the first material length and the second material length comprises a summed material length that is greater than or approximately equal to an installed length measured from the second end of the first panel to the second end of the second panel, [claim 5] wherein the installed length of the first panel and the second panel is less than the mullion distance, and [claim 6] wherein the mullion distance is at least about 72 inches (about 1,829 mm). However, AT ‘915 further teaches [claim 3] a sum of the first material length and the second material length comprises a summed material length that is greater than or approximately equal to an installed/connected length measured from the second end of the first panel to the second end of the second panel (AT ‘915 the sum of the first and second material lengths is greater than an installed/connected length because the indentation of the first panel receives the longitudinally extending protrusion of the second panel, see Fig. 2). It is understood that the panels of AT ‘915 are combined to form a length that is greater than one panel (AT ‘915 machine translation). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that combining such panels would result in an installed/connected length being approximately equal to, or could be less than a mullion distance, depending on the length of the panels, and the length of the mullion distance, and could be used with mullions spaced at least about (note that “about” as recited throughout the claims was treated as a relative term of degree in light of applicant’s specification and under the plain meaning to mean close to) 72 inches (about 1,829 mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try sizing the panels and the mullion distance, such that a sum of the first material length and the second material length comprises a summed material length that is greater than or approximately equal to an installed length measured from the second end of the first panel to the second end of the second panel, wherein the installed length of the first panel and the second panel is approximately equal to the mullion distance, wherein the installed length of the first panel and the second panel is less than the mullion distance, and wherein the mullion distance is at least about 72 inches (about 1,829 mm), with the reasonable expectation of success of installing the panels between the mullions to provide insulation and fire protection, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.).
Claims 7-13, Stahl and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Stahl does not teach [claim 7] wherein at least one of the material thickness of the first panel or the material thickness of the second panel is at least about 3 inches (about 76.2 mm), [claim 8] wherein a ratio of a width of the indentation of the first panel to the material thickness of the first panel is about 1:3, [claim 9] wherein a ratio of a width of the protrusion of the second panel to the material thickness of the second panel is about 1:3, [claim 10] wherein a width of the indentation of the first panel is approximately equal to a width of the protrusion of the second panel, [claim 11] wherein a width of the indentation of the first panel is greater than a width of the protrusion of the second panel, [claim 12] wherein a ratio of a depth of the indentation of the first panel to a width of the indentation of the first panel is about 1:1, and [claim 13] wherein a ratio of a depth of the protrusion of the second panel to a width of the protrusion of the second panel is about 1:1. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system such that at least one of the material thickness of the first panel or the material thickness of the second panel is at least about 3 inches (about 76.2 mm), a ratio of a width of the indentation of the first panel to the material thickness of the first panel is about 1:3, a ratio of a width of the protrusion of the second panel to the material thickness of the second panel is about 1:3, a width of the indentation of the first panel is approximately equal to a width of the protrusion of the second panel, a width of the indentation of the first panel is greater than a width of the protrusion of the second panel, a ratio of a depth of the indentation of the first panel to a width of the indentation of the first panel is about 1:1, and a ratio of a depth of the protrusion of the second panel to a width of the protrusion of the second panel is about 1:1, with the reasonable expectation of success of obtaining desired insulation properties and/or fire protective properties of spandrel insulation that has a strong connection between panels suitable to maintain the connection between panels, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in proportion. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, INC., 725 F.2D 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Claim 14, as modified above, the combination of Stahl and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein a depth of the indentation of the first panel is approximately equal to a depth of the protrusion of the second panel (AT ‘915 Figs. 2-3).
Claim 15, as modified above, the combination of Stahl and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second end of the first panel comprises a second longitudinally extending protrusion (AT ‘915 5; Fig. 3) and the second end of the second panel comprises a second longitudinally extending indentation (AT ‘915 4; Fig. 3).
Claim 16, as modified above, the combination of Stahl and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one of the first panel or the second panel is symmetrical about at least one of a horizontal plane perpendicular to at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel or a vertical plane parallel at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel (AT ‘915; symmetrical about a horizontal plane perpendicular to at least one of the first face or the second face; Figs. 1-2).
Claim 17, as modified above, the combination of Stahl and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one of the first panel or the second panel is asymmetrical about at least one of a horizontal plane perpendicular to at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel or a vertical plane parallel at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel (AT ‘915; asymmetrical about a vertical plane parallel at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel; Figs. 1-2).
Claim 19, as modified above, the combination of Stahl and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one of the first panel or the second panel comprises mineral wool (Stahl [0044]; AT ‘915 machine translation).
Claim 20, Stahl and AT ‘915 teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Although Stahl teaches the panel being the same material as applicant’s material (mineral wool [0044]), Stahl does not teach the panel having a density of at least about 96 kg/m3. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material of the first or second panel to have a density of at least about 96 kg/m3, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known material with a known density value to provide superior performance in compressive strength, improved sound absorption, and better fire resistance, compared to mineral wool with lower densities, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA).
Claim 21, Stahl teaches a curtain wall insulation panel 20 for insulating a curtain wall structure connected to a building structure (note that curtain wall structure and a building structure are not positively recited and thus not required), the panel comprising:
a first face (first face of 20; Figs. 2 and 6),
a second face opposite the first face (second face of 20; Figs. 2 and 6),
a material thickness defined between the first face and the second face (material thickness between the first and second faces of 20; Fig. 6),
a first end (first end of 20; Figs. 2 and 6),
a second end opposite the first end (second end of 20; Figs. 2 and 6), and
a first material length defined between the first end and the second end (length between the first and second ends of 20; Figs. 2 and 6); and
wherein the panel is configured to be disposed within framing 17 of the curtain wall structure (Figs. 2 and 6), the framing defined by at least first and second vertically disposed and parallel mullions 17 separated by a mullion distance (Fig. 2); and
the panel having a second end opposite the first end (Figs. 2 and 6) with a second material length defined therebetween (Figs. 2 and 6), a first face (first face of 20), and a second face opposite the first face (second face of 20) with a material thickness defined therebetween (material thickness of 20).
Although Stahl teaches the panel being spandrel insulation [0033], Stahl does not teach the panel first end having a longitudinally extending protrusion, such that the longitudinally extending protrusion of the panel is at least partially disposed within a longitudinally extending indentation of a first end of a second curtain wall insulation panel disposed within the framing.
However, AT ‘915 teaches fire protection insulating panels (“fire protection panels 1”; AT ‘915 machine translation as provided by applicant) comprising the same material as applicant’s panel (mineral wool; AT ‘915 machine translation as provided by applicant), the panels each comprising a longitudinally extending protrusion 5 that gets disposed within a longitudinally extending recess 4 of an adjacent panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the panel first end having a longitudinally extending protrusion, such that the longitudinally extending protrusion of the panel is at least partially disposed within a longitudinally extending indentation of a first end of a second curtain wall insulation panel disposed within the framing, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to connect two panels together to span a distance between framing, when the distance is longer than one panel, and/or to make it easier to handle, transport and install shorter panels, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shriver (US 8671645) in view of AT 005915 U1 (as provided by applicant) (‘AT ‘915’).
Claim 1, Shriver teaches a system for insulating a curtain wall structure connected to a building structure, the curtain wall structure having framing defined by at least first and second vertically disposed and parallel mullions separated by a mullion distance (note that the claim is drawn to a system for insulating, and does not positively recite a curtain wall structure or a building structure, thus the curtain wall structure including framing defined by first and second mullions, and the building structure are not required), the system comprising:
a curtain wall insulation panel (22; Figs. 1-2) having:
a first face (first face of 22; Figs. 1-2),
a second face opposite the first face (second face of 22; Figs. 1-2),
a material thickness defined between the first face and the second face (material thickness between the first and second faces of 22; Fig. 2),
a first end (first end of 22; Fig. 2),
a second end opposite the first end (second end of 22; Fig. 2), and
a first material length defined between the first end and the second end (length between the first and second ends of 22; Figs. 1-2); and
wherein the panel is configured to be disposed within the framing (16, 18).
Although Shriver teaches the panel being spandrel insulation (col. 4, lines 18-20), Shriver does not teach the panel comprising first and second panels, the first end of the first panel having a longitudinally extending indentation, and the first end of the second panel having a longitudinally extending protrusion, such that the longitudinally extending protrusion of the second panel is at least partially disposed within the longitudinally extending indentation of the first panel.
However, AT ‘915 teaches fire protection insulating panels (“fire protection panels 1”; AT ‘915 machine translation as provided by applicant) comprising the same material as applicant’s first and second panels (mineral wool; AT ‘915 machine translation as provided by applicant), the panels each comprising a longitudinally extending protrusion 5 that gets disposed within a longitudinally extending recess 4 of an adjacent panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the spandrel insulation comprising a first panel and a second panel, wherein the first panel and the second panel are configured to be disposed within the framing such that a longitudinally extending protrusion of the second panel is at least partially disposed within a longitudinally extending indentation of the first panel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to connect two panels together to span a distance between framing, when the distance is longer than one panel, and/or to make it easier to handle, transport and install shorter panels, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim 2, Shriver further teaches the system preventing migration of flame (col. 4, lines 25-35). Shriver does not specifically teach the system having a flame rating of at least 2 hours, as measured in accordance with ASTM E2307. Note that ASTM E2307 was treated as a known standard. As such, the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, using known methods with no change in their respective functions to obtain a flame rating of at least 2 hours to meet the claimed standard. Such a combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Shriver’s system to have a flame rating of at least 2 hours, as measured in accordance with ASTM E2307, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known system to meet a known standard.
Claims 3-6, Shriver and AT ‘915 teach all the limitations of claim 1. Shriver further teaches [claim 4] wherein the installed length of the spandrel panel is approximately (note that “approximately” as recited throughout the claims was treated in accordance with the specification and under the plain meaning to mean about or close to, including not necessarily being exact) equal to the mullion distance (Shriver distance between 16 left and 16 right, as viewed in Fig. 2). Shriver does not teach [claim 3] wherein a sum of the first material length and the second material length comprises a summed material length that is greater than or approximately equal to an installed length measured from the second end of the first panel to the second end of the second panel, [claim 5] wherein the installed length of the first panel and the second panel is less than the mullion distance, and [claim 6] wherein the mullion distance is at least about 72 inches (about 1,829 mm). However, AT ‘915 further teaches [claim 3] a sum of the first material length and the second material length comprises a summed material length that is greater than or approximately equal to an installed/connected length measured from the second end of the first panel to the second end of the second panel (AT ‘915 the sum of the first and second material lengths is greater than an installed/connected length because the indentation of the first panel receives the longitudinally extending protrusion of the second panel, see Fig. 2). It is understood that the panels of AT ‘915 are combined to form a length that is greater than one panel (AT ‘915 machine translation). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that combining such panels would result in an installed/connected length being approximately equal to, or could be less than a mullion distance, depending on the length of the panels, and the length of the mullion distance, and could be used with mullions spaced at least about (note that “about” as recited throughout the claims was treated as a relative term of degree in light of applicant’s specification and under the plain meaning to mean close to) 72 inches (about 1,829 mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try sizing the panels and the mullion distance, such that a sum of the first material length and the second material length comprises a summed material length that is greater than or approximately equal to an installed length measured from the second end of the first panel to the second end of the second panel, wherein the installed length of the first panel and the second panel is approximately equal to the mullion distance, wherein the installed length of the first panel and the second panel is less than the mullion distance, and wherein the mullion distance is at least about 72 inches (about 1,829 mm), with the reasonable expectation of success of installing the panels between the mullions to provide insulation and fire protection, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.).
Claims 7-13, Shriver and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Shriver does not teach [claim 7] wherein at least one of the material thickness of the first panel or the material thickness of the second panel is at least about 3 inches (about 76.2 mm), [claim 8] wherein a ratio of a width of the indentation of the first panel to the material thickness of the first panel is about 1:3, [claim 9] wherein a ratio of a width of the protrusion of the second panel to the material thickness of the second panel is about 1:3, [claim 10] wherein a width of the indentation of the first panel is approximately equal to a width of the protrusion of the second panel, [claim 11] wherein a width of the indentation of the first panel is greater than a width of the protrusion of the second panel, [claim 12] wherein a ratio of a depth of the indentation of the first panel to a width of the indentation of the first panel is about 1:1, and [claim 13] wherein a ratio of a depth of the protrusion of the second panel to a width of the protrusion of the second panel is about 1:1. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system such that at least one of the material thickness of the first panel or the material thickness of the second panel is at least about 3 inches (about 76.2 mm), a ratio of a width of the indentation of the first panel to the material thickness of the first panel is about 1:3, a ratio of a width of the protrusion of the second panel to the material thickness of the second panel is about 1:3, a width of the indentation of the first panel is approximately equal to a width of the protrusion of the second panel, a width of the indentation of the first panel is greater than a width of the protrusion of the second panel, a ratio of a depth of the indentation of the first panel to a width of the indentation of the first panel is about 1:1, and a ratio of a depth of the protrusion of the second panel to a width of the protrusion of the second panel is about 1:1, with the reasonable expectation of success of obtaining desired insulation properties and/or fire protective properties of spandrel insulation that has a strong connection between panels suitable to maintain the connection between panels, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in proportion. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, INC., 725 F.2D 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Claim 14, as modified above, the combination of Shriver and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein a depth of the indentation of the first panel is approximately equal to a depth of the protrusion of the second panel (AT ‘915 Figs. 2-3).
Claim 15, as modified above, the combination of Shriver and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second end of the first panel comprises a second longitudinally extending protrusion (AT ‘915 5; Fig. 3) and the second end of the second panel comprises a second longitudinally extending indentation (AT ‘915 4; Fig. 3).
Claim 16, as modified above, the combination of Shriver and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one of the first panel or the second panel is symmetrical about at least one of a horizontal plane perpendicular to at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel or a vertical plane parallel at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel (AT ‘915; symmetrical about a horizontal plane perpendicular to at least one of the first face or the second face; Figs. 1-2).
Claim 17, as modified above, the combination of Shriver and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one of the first panel or the second panel is asymmetrical about at least one of a horizontal plane perpendicular to at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel or a vertical plane parallel at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel (AT ‘915; asymmetrical about a vertical plane parallel at least one of the first face or the second face of at least one of the first panel or the second panel; Figs. 1-2).
Claim 18, Shriver further teaches wherein the framing is further defined by at least first and second horizontally disposed and parallel transoms 18 separated by a transom distance (col. 4, lines 10-18). Shriver does not teach wherein the transom distance is less than or equal to about 24 inches (about 610 mm). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system such that the transom distance is less than or equal to about 24 inches (about 610 mm), with the reasonable expectation of success of providing a spacing sufficient to install insulation over a slab, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA).
Claim 19, as modified above, the combination of Shriver and AT ‘915 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one of the first panel or the second panel comprises mineral wool (Shriver col. 4, lines 35-38; AT ‘915 machine translation).
Claim 20, Shriver and AT ‘915 teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Although Shriver teaches the panel being the same material as applicant’s material (mineral wool col. 4, lines 35-38), Shriver does not teach the panel having a density of at least about 96 kg/m3. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material of the first or second panel to have a density of at least about 96 kg/m3, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known material with a known density value to provide superior performance in compressive strength, improved sound absorption, and better fire resistance, compared to mineral wool with lower densities, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA).
Claim 21, Shriver teaches a curtain wall insulation panel 22 for insulating a curtain wall structure connected to a building structure (note that curtain wall structure and a building structure are not positively recited and thus not required), the panel comprising:
a first face (first face of 22; Figs. 1-2),
a second face opposite the first face (second face of 22; Figs. 1-2),
a material thickness defined between the first face and the second face (material thickness between the first and second faces of 22; Fig. 2),
a first end (first end of 22; Figs. 1-2),
a second end opposite the first end (second end of 22; Figs. 1-2), and
a first material length defined between the first end and the second end (length between the first and second ends of 22; Figs. 1-2); and
wherein the panel is configured to be disposed within framing (16, 18) of the curtain wall structure (Figs. 1-2), the framing defined by at least first and second vertically disposed and parallel mullions 16 separated by a mullion distance (Fig. 2); and
the panel having a second end opposite the first end (Figs. 1-2) with a second material length defined therebetween (Figs. 1-2), a first face (first face of 22), and a second face opposite the first face (second face of 22) with a material thickness defined therebetween (material thickness of 22).
Although Shriver teaches the panel being spandrel insulation (col. 4, lines 18-20), Shriver does not teach the panel first end having a longitudinally extending protrusion, such that the longitudinally extending protrusion of the panel is at least partially disposed within a longitudinally extending indentation of a first end of a second curtain wall insulation panel disposed within the framing.
However, AT ‘915 teaches fire protection insulating panels (“fire protection panels 1”; AT ‘915 machine translation as provided by applicant) comprising the same material as applicant’s panel (mineral wool; AT ‘915 machine translation as provided by applicant), the panels each comprising a longitudinally extending protrusion 5 that gets disposed within a longitudinally extending recess 4 of an adjacent panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the panel first end having a longitudinally extending protrusion, such that the longitudinally extending protrusion of the panel is at least partially disposed within a longitudinally extending indentation of a first end of a second curtain wall insulation panel disposed within the framing, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to connect two panels together to span a distance between framing, when the distance is longer than one panel, and/or to make it easier to handle, transport and install shorter panels, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635