DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 09/07/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Therefore, claims 1-14 are now pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by London (US 2164138 A).
Regarding claim 1, London teaches an attic baffle radiant barrier (insulation medium capable of use in an attic; ceiling-floor construction; col. 1, lines 5-20; figure 3), comprising: a baffle substrate (21, 41), comprising a cross-span (see annotated figure 3 below) with an upper surface (upper surface of 21), a lower surface (lower surface of 21), a first edge (A1), and a second edge (A2), said cross-span extending between a first leg (annotated figure 3) with a first end (annotated figure 3) and a second end (annotated figure 3) and a second leg with a first end and a second end (annotated figure 3; although not show in detail it is understood that the second leg with a first end and a second end, would mirror what is shown as annotated for the first leg), said first edge attached to the first leg between the first end and second end of the first leg (annotated figure 3), and said second edge attached to the second leg between the first end and second end of the first leg (annotated figure 3); a first tab (annotated figure 3) with a proximal end (annotated figure 3) and a distal end (annotated figure 3) extending from the first end or second an end of the first leg (annotated figure 3), wherein the distal end is a free end (annotated figure 3); a second tab with a proximal end and a distal end extending from the first end or second an end of the second leg, wherein the distal end is a free end (annotated figure 3; although not show in detail it is understood that the second tab with a proximal end and a distal end extending from the first end or second an end of the second leg, wherein the distal end is a free end, would mirror what is shown as annotated for the first leg); and a radiant barrier layer (22) affixed to the upper surface or lower surface of the cross-span (figure 3).
Regarding claim 2, London teaches the radiant barrier layer contiguously extends to and is affixed to an inner surface of the first leg and an inner surface of the second leg (annotated figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, London teaches the first edge is integrated with and contiguous with the first leg (annotated figure 3), and the second edge in integrated with and contiguous with the second leg (annotated figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, London teaches the first tab and second tab extend outwardly from the end of the respective leg (annotated figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, London teaches the first tab and second tab extend outwardly at an acute angle with respect to the respective leg (annotated figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, London teaches the first edge is foldingly or flexibly attached to the first leg, and said second edge is foldingly or flexibly attached to the second leg (as illustrated, member 21 is flexibly attached at the edges to both legs; annotated figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, London teaches the first tab is foldingly or flexibly attached to the first leg, and said second tab is foldingly or flexibly attached to the second leg (as illustrated, the tabs are flexibly attached at the respective legs; annotated figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, London teaches the first tab is attached to a lower end of the first leg (annotated figure 3) and the second tab is attached to a lower end of the second leg (annotated figure 3), and the radiant barrier layer extends across the entirety of the lower surface of the cross-span (annotated figure 3) and down the adjacent faces of the respective legs to the lower end of each respective leg (annotated figure 3).
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 of this title, 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) 9-12 and 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over London (US 2164138 A) in view of Ellis (U.S. Patent No. 7,818,922).
Regarding claim 9, London does not specifically disclose the radiant barrier layer comprises an aluminum sheet or foil.
Ellis teaches a building insulation system (abstract) including a radiant barrier layer (140) that comprises an aluminum sheet or foil (foil; col. 3, line 21).
Therefore, from the teaching of Ellis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the insulation system of London such that the radiant barrier layer comprises an aluminum sheet or foil, as taught by Ellis, in order to provide a more durable material that would provide a longer service life.
Regarding claim 10, London does not specifically disclose the radiant barrier layer comprises a copper sheet or foil.
Ellis teaches a building insulation system (abstract) including a radiant barrier layer (140) that comprises a copper sheet or foil (foil; col. 3, line 21).
Therefore, from the teaching of Ellis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the insulation system of London such that the radiant barrier layer comprises a copper sheet or foil, as taught by Ellis, in order to provide a more durable material that would provide a longer service life.
Regarding claim 11, London does not specifically disclose the radiant barrier layer comprises a sprayed-on metallic substance.
Ellis teaches a building insulation system (abstract) including a radiant barrier layer (140) that comprises a metallic substance (foil; col. 3, line 21).
Therefore, from the teaching of Ellis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the insulation system of London such that the radiant barrier layer comprises a sprayed-on metallic substance, as taught by Ellis, in order to provide a more durable material that would provide a longer service life.
With regards to the limitation that the product is formed by being sprayed-on, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Ellis teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 12, London does not specifically disclose the radiant barrier layer comprises a brushed-on metallic substance.
Ellis teaches a building insulation system (abstract) including a radiant barrier layer (140) that comprises a metallic substance (foil; col. 3, line 21).
Therefore, from the teaching of Ellis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the insulation system of London such that the radiant barrier layer comprises a sprayed-on metallic substance, as taught by Ellis, in order to provide a more durable material that would provide a longer service life.
With regards to the limitation that the product is formed by being brushed-on, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Ellis teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 14, London does not specifically disclose the baffle substrate comprises plastic.
Ellis teaches a building insulation system (abstract) including a baffle substrate (115) that comprises plastic (col. 3, line 10).
Therefore, from the teaching of Ellis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the insulation system of London such that the baffle substrate comprises plastic, as taught by Ellis, in order to provide a lightweight material to facilitate installation.
Claim 13, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over London (US 2164138 A) in view of Ward (U.S. Patent No. 4,214,510).
Regarding claim 13, London does not specifically disclose the baffle substrate comprises paperboard.
Ward discloses a vent and baffle assembly (abstract) wherein the baffle substrate comprises paperboard (cardboard; col. 2, line 20).
Therefore, from the teaching of Ward, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vent and insulation system of London, such that the baffle substrate comprises paperboard, in order to provide material flexibility to accommodate fitting the vent within framing variations in the field, since structures in the field can vary in angle alignment and dimensional tolerance, to improve fit and facilitate installation.
PNG
media_image1.png
885
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
New reference London (US 2164138 A) has been added to overcome the newly added limitations. Applicant’s amendment regarding the configuration of first and second ends of the first and second legs, in addition to proximal and distal ends of the first and second tabs, overcomes the rejection in view of Ellis and the arguments including the annotations pointing out the differences were found persuasive
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (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 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.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights