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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 3 “ the slat system” is lacking antecedent basis.
Claims 3-4, depend on claims 1-2. However, the claims have different preamble from the independent claim 1. The claims are thus indefinite and improper.
Claim 6 also has preamble problem due to its dependency.
Claim 7 lines 25-29 “ can be introduced…preferably….can be passed…” confuses the scope of the claim, and is thus indefinite.
Claim 8 “ preferably…” confuses the scope of the claim and is thus indefinite.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend on another multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 9-10 have not been further treated on the merits.
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) 1-3, 8, 11-12 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koster (WO2017/134118) in view of Bielefeld (EP1223297).
Koster figures 8-12, shows light deflection system with mirror reflection optics for deflecting light radiation, characterised at least two individual reflector strips on its upper side, wherein at least one reflector strip has at least one serrated, light-reflecting upper side(10) and at least one reflector strip(11) has a smooth and/or stepped, light-reflecting upper side and that the reflector strip with a serrated contour deflects light in the direction of incidence and the reflector strip with a smooth and/or stepped contour enables light to be deflected into a half-space, opposite the incidence of light, so that parallel arrangement of the reflector strips produces a bifocal optical system with a focus on the side of the light incidence and a focus on an opposite side of the louvre body.
Koster does not show the slat system consists of a statically load bearing slat body, the body accommodates at least two individual reflector strip on its upper side.
Bielefeld discloses reflective strips (10) attached to a statically load bearing slat body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kosler’s structure to show a statically load bearing slat body, the body accommodates at least two individual reflector strip on its upper side as taught by Bielefeld with a reasonable expectation of success in order to form a slat for a louver.
Per claim 2, Kosler as modified further shows the stepped reflector with serrated contour is installed on a side oriented towards the outer space or on a side oriented towards the inner space and the smooth and/or stepped contour is installed on a side of the louvre body oriented towards the outer space or on a side oriented towards the inner space.
Per claim 3, Kosler as modified further shows the initial width of the reflector strips is selected in such a way that the strength of the cross sectional bending of the reflector strips and thus the focusing properties of the reflector strips can be determined by the edge pressure when the edges engage in grooves.
Per claim 8, Kosler as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for the stepped reflector strips have tooth formations arranged in a row with symmetrical teeth, the tooth flanks of which have the same size on each side and in that the tooth flanks are smaller than 1 mm, preferably smaller than 1/10 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kosler’s modified structures to show the stepped reflector strips have tooth formations arranged in a row with symmetrical teeth, the tooth flanks of which have the same size on each side and in that the tooth flanks are smaller than 1 mm, preferably smaller than 1/10 mm with a reasonable expectation of success since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify Kosler to show the claimed dimensions as long as the sizes provide the needed reflections for the slats of the louver.
Per claims 11, Kosler as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for
the tooth structure being applied to the foil by means of UV-curing lacquers and the tooth structure then being metallised.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kosler’s modified structures to show the tooth structure being applied to the foil by means of UV-curing lacquers and the tooth structure then being metallised with a reasonable expectation of success since using the known processes would enable the easy formation of the lamella.
Per claims 12, Kosler as modified shows all the claimed limitations including the except for reflector strips consist of a thin, metallic material or of plastic films or paper.
Kosler as modified does not show reflector strips are fed to the louvre body in the co-extrusion process and form a composite therewith.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kosler’s modified structures to show reflector strips are fed to the louvre body in the co-extrusion process and form a composite therewith a reasonable expectation of success since using the known processes(extrusion) would enable the easy formation of the lamella.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Per claim 4, prior art does not provide sufficient motivation to modify Kosler to show the slat body has a central web with grooves offset in height and in that the reflector strips engage between grooves on the edges of the body and in one of the grooves offset in height and can thus be installed at different inclinations in combination with other claimed limitations.
Per claim 5, prior art does not provide sufficient motivation to modify Kosler to show photovoltaic cells are installed on a side of a web facing the light irradiation, which photovoltaic cells can be exposed to reflected light radiation by means of a reflector strip inclined towards the photovoltaic cell in combination with other claimed limitations.
Per claim 7, prior art does not provide sufficient motivation to modify Kosler to show concave reflector strips are built into the lamella body, the reflector strips being arranged tilted relative to one another and being firmly connected to one another by an inclined central web of the lamella body in combination with other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows different louver systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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 GLESSNER can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/PHI D A/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights