DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (see Pages 1-2) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 4-5 and 8 include shading. The use of shading may be used if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See MPEP § 608.02. In the instant case, legibility is reduced.
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
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is greater than 150 words in length. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that uses the word “means,” and is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “By means of a seal” in claim 1 and “by means of a further seal” in claim 7 and in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification identifies the seal as a weld or a pressure weld.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18 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.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “the edges” in line 6, “the individual walls” in line 6, “the unconnected edges” in line 8, “the walls” in line 8, “the chamber profile preforms” in line 10, “said space” in line 10, “the end edges” in line 10, “the chamber profile preforms” in line 11, “the end edges” in line 11, “the corresponding end edges” in line 14, “the chamber profile preform” in line 17-18 and “the internal space” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “edges,” “the inner and outer walls,” “unconnected edges,” “the inner and outer walls,” “the at least three chamber profile preforms,” “said closed hermetic hollow internal space,” “end edges,” “the at least three chamber profile preforms,” “end edges,” “corresponding end edges,” “the at least three chamber profile preforms,” and “the closed hermetic hollow internal space” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 2, claim 2 recites, “the chamber profile preforms” in line 3 and “the number of chamber profiles” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the at least three chamber profile preforms” and “a number of chamber profiles” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 3, claim 3 recites, “the chamber profile preforms” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the at least three chamber profile preforms” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 5, claim 5 recites, “the chamber profile preform” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the at least three chamber profile preforms” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 6, claim 6 recites, “the chamber profile preform” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the at least three chamber profile preforms” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 7, claim 7 recites, “the chamber profile preform” in line 3 and again in line 6, and “the area” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the at least three chamber profile preforms” and “an area” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 8, claim 8 recites, “the chamber profiles” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the at least three chamber profile preforms” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 10, claim 10 recites, “the fluid” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the pressurized fluid” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 11, claim 11 recites, “the edges” in line 4, “the walls” in line 5, “the chamber profile” in line 6, “said space” in line 6, “the end edges” in line 6, “the chamber profile preforms” in line 6-7, “the end edges” in line 7, “the introduction” in line 8, “the hermetic internal space” in line 8, “the chamber profiles” in line 8, “the seal” in line 10 and “the chamber profiles” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “each chamber profile,” “the two walls,” “each chamber profile,” “said closed hermetic internal space,” “end edges,” “each chamber profile,” “end edges,” “introduction,” “the closed hermetic internal space,” “each chamber profile,” “a seal” and “each chamber profile” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 12, claim 12 recites, “the other chamber profiles” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “other chamber profiles” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 13, claim 13 recites, “the central chamber” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the closed hermetic internal space” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 14, claim 14 recites, “the chamber profile” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “each chamber profile” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 15, claim 15 recites, “the chamber profile preform” in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “each chamber profile” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 16, claim 16 recites, “the chamber profile” in line 2 and “the area” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “each chamber profile” and “an area” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 17, claim 17 recites, “the seal” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “a seal” (though this may remain unchanged if amended above) and will be interpreted as such.
Claim(s) 4, 9 and 18 is/are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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) 1-6, 8, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarbovig (US 2010/0247249) in view of Crettol et al (“Crettol”) (US 8,161,687) and Doolaege (US 2010/0003081).
Re claim 1, Skarbovig discloses a method of manufacturing (see Fig. 3-5, being manufactured) a multi-chamber closed structural element (1), comprising the steps of:
a) at least three chamber profile preforms (constituted by 8 and 14/28/38) are provided (Fig. 3-5), each comprising an inner wall (14/28/38) and an outer wall (8; see also Fig. 3 showing separate elements 8 per bag) made of a sheet of metal material ([0021]), wherein the edges (of each element 8 and 14/28/38) of the individual walls (8 and 14/28/38) converge (Fig. 5), wherein a vent (10) is arranged on at least one wall (8),
b) the walls (8 and 14/28/38) of the chamber profile preforms (via 8 and 14/28/38) form a closed hermetic hollow internal space (16; see Fig. 5 showing no openings) of the chamber profile preforms (of each element 8 and 14/28/38), said space (16) comprising the end edges (end edges of each element 8 and 14/28/38) of the chamber profile preforms (of each element 8 and 14/28/38),
c) at least three chamber profile preforms (of each element 8 and 14/28/38) are connected to each other in series (Fig. 5) by the corresponding end edges (edges of each element 8 and 14/28/38) to form a preform (1) of the multi- chamber closed structural element (1) having annular structure (Fig. 5) in cross section (Fig. 5), the preform (1) comprising a central chamber (18) surrounded by an inner wall (14/28/38) of the chamber profile preform (of each element 8 and 14/28/38),
d) a pressurised fluid ([0023]) is introduced through the vent (10) into the internal space (16) of at least three chamber profile preforms (of each element 8 and 14/28/38) to form a deformed chamber profiles (of each element 8 and 14/28/38),
but fails to disclose the at least three chamber profile preforms arranged in substantially parallel planes with respect to one another with a gap between them (before pressurized fluid), the unconnected edges of the walls of the chamber profile preforms are sealed by means of a seal (before pressurized fluid), wherein the end edges are substantially parallel to each other (before pressurized fluid).
However, Crettol discloses the at least three chamber profile preforms (Fig. 8, 1) arranged in substantially parallel planes with respect to one another (top/bottom and left/right) with a gap between them (proximate 9/10) (before pressurized fluid), wherein the end edges (ends of 1) are substantially parallel to each other (top/bottom and left/right) (before pressurized fluid).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Skarbovig with the at least three chamber profile preforms arranged in substantially parallel planes with respect to one another with a gap between them (before pressurized fluid), wherein the end edges are substantially parallel to each other (before pressurized fluid) as disclosed by Crettol in order to lay out the preforms in a simple manner prior to pressurizing such as to not allow for entanglement.
In addition, Doolaege discloses the unconnected edges (of 11/12, see Fig. 3) of the walls (of 11 and 12) of the chamber profile preforms (11, 12) are sealed by means of a seal (17; [0027] disclosing welding) (before pressurized fluid).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Skarbovig with the unconnected edges of the walls of the chamber profile preforms are sealed by means of a seal (before pressurized fluid) as disclosed by Doolaege in order to provide a strong, permanent connection.
Re claim 2, Skarbovig as modified discloses the method of manufacturing a multi-chamber closed structural element according to claim 1, in step a), the chamber profile preforms (of each element 8 and 14/28/38) are provided in a number (Fig. 3-5) corresponding to the number (Fig. 3-5) of chamber profiles (of each element 8 and 14/28/38) in the multi-chamber closed structural element (1).
Re claim 3, Skarbovig as modified discloses the method of manufacturing a multi-chamber closed structural element according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the chamber profile preforms in the preform of a multi-chamber closed structural element have varying widths.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Skarbovig wherein the chamber profile preforms in the preform of a multi-chamber closed structural element have varying widths in order to increase strength of individual chamber profiles with respect to other chamber profiles, as needed. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149. In addition, 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).
Re claim 4, Skarbovig as modified discloses the method of manufacturing a multi-chamber closed structural element according to claim 1, wherein the central chamber (18) is filled with filler ([0023]; Fig. 5).
Re claim 5, Skarbovig as modified discloses the method of manufacturing a multi-chamber closed structural element according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the chamber profile preform has areas of the inner wall and/or outer wall with increased metal sheet thickness.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Skarbovig wherein the chamber profile preform has areas of the inner wall and/or outer wall with increased metal sheet thickness in order to increase strength of individual chamber profiles with respect to other chamber profiles, as needed. 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).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Skarbovig to be made of metal in order increase strength and rigidity while using a readily available, easily formable material. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 6, Skarbovig as modified discloses the method of manufacturing a multi-chamber closed structural element according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the chamber profile preform has areas of the inner wall and/or outer wall made of different material
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Skarbovig wherein the chamber profile preform has areas of the inner wall and/or outer wall made of different material in order to optimize strength and limit costs, but selecting particular materials for individual walls, as needed. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 8, Skarbovig as modified discloses the method of manufacturing a multi-chamber closed structural element according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein step c) is carried out simultaneously for all chamber profile preforms corresponding to the chamber profiles in the multi-chamber closed structural element.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Skarbovig wherein step c) is carried out simultaneously for all chamber profile preforms corresponding to the chamber profiles in the multi-chamber closed structural element in order to reduce time for assembly. In general, selection of the order of performing process steps has been held as within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent new or unexpected results. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975.
Re claim 11, Skarbovig discloses a multi-chamber closed structural element (1) comprising least three chamber profiles (of each element of 8 and 14/28/38), wherein each chamber profile (of each element of 8 and 14/28/38) comprises two walls (one being 8, the other being 14/28/38) made of a sheet (8 and 14/28/38) with a vent (10) arranged on at least one wall (8), said space (16) comprising the end edges (end edges of 8 and 14/28/38) of the chamber profile preforms (of each element of 8 and 14/28/38), wherein opposite two walls (8 and 14/28/38) are deformed (Fig. 5) due to the introduction of fluid under pressure ([0023]) into the hermetic internal space (16), wherein the chamber profiles (8 and 14/28/38) are connected to each other in series (Fig. 5) by corresponding end edges (Fig. 5), along at least a portion of the seal (as modified below), to form the multi-chamber closed structural element (1) which forms, in cross-section (Fig. 5), an annular structure (Fig. 5) comprising a central chamber (18) surrounded by inner walls (14/28/38) of the chamber profiles (of each element of 8 and 14/28/38),
but fails to disclose the sheet as metal, wherein the edges of the metal sheet forming the walls are sealed creating a closed hermetic internal space of the chamber profile, wherein the end edges are substantially parallel to each other.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-chamber closed structural element of Skarbovig with the sheet to be made of metal in order increase strength and rigidity while using a readily available, easily formable material. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
In addition, Crettol discloses wherein the end edges (ends of 1) are substantially parallel to each other (top/bottom and left/right) (before pressurized fluid).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-chamber closed structural element of Skarbovig wherein the end edges are substantially parallel to each other (before pressurized fluid) as disclosed by Crettol in order to lay out the preforms in a simple manner prior to pressurizing such as to not allow for entanglement.
In addition, Doolaege discloses the edges (of 11/12, see Fig. 3) of sheet (of 11 and 12) forming the walls (of 11 and 12) are sealed forming a closed hermetic internal space (Skarbovig: Fig. 5) (before pressurized fluid).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-chamber closed structural element of Skarbovig wherein the edges of the metal sheet forming the walls are sealed creating a closed hermetic internal space of the chamber profile, wherein the end edges are substantially parallel to each other as disclosed by Doolaege in order to provide a strong, permanent connection.
Re claim 12, Skarbovig as modified discloses the multi-chamber closed structural element according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein at least one chamber profile has a greater or lesser width than the other chamber profiles.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-chamber closed structural element of Skarbovig wherein at least one chamber profile has a greater or lesser width than the other chamber profiles in order to increase strength of individual chamber profiles with respect to other chamber profiles, as needed. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149. In addition, 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).
Re claim 13, Skarbovig as modified discloses the multi-chamber closed structural element according to claim 11, wherein the central chamber (18) is filled with filler ([0023]; Fig. 5).
Re claim 14, Skarbovig as modified discloses the multi-chamber closed structural element according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the chamber profile preform has areas of the inner wall and/or outer wall with increased metal sheet thickness.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-chamber closed structural element of Skarbovig wherein the chamber profile preform has areas of the inner wall and/or outer wall with increased metal sheet thickness in order to increase strength of individual chamber profiles with respect to other chamber profiles, as needed. 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).
Re claim 15, Skarbovig as modified discloses the multi-chamber closed structural element according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the chamber profile preform has areas of the inner wall and/or outer wall made of different material
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-chamber closed structural element of Skarbovig wherein the chamber profile preform has areas of the inner wall and/or outer wall made of different material in order to optimize strength and limit costs, but selecting particular materials for individual walls, as needed. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarbovig (US 2010/0247249) in view of Crettol et al (“Crettol”) (US 8,161,687), Doolaege (US 2010/0003081) and Ramp et al (“Ramp”) (US 10,179,998).
Re claim 7, Skarbovig as modified discloses the method of manufacturing a multi-chamber closed structural element according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the chamber profile preform has at least one through opening formed in the area of the inner wall and the outer wall and sealed by means of a further seal to form a closed hermetic hollow internal space of the chamber profile preform.
However, Ramp discloses wherein the chamber profile preform (12) has at least one through opening (at 30) formed in the area of the inner wall and the outer wall (of 12) and sealed by means of a further seal (Col 1 line 60 – Col 2 line 13) to form a closed hermetic hollow internal space (Col 1 line 60 – Col 2 line 13) of the chamber profile preform (12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Skarbovig wherein the chamber profile preform has at least one through opening formed in the area of the inner wall and the outer wall and sealed by means of a further seal to form a closed hermetic hollow internal space of the chamber profile preform as disclosed by Ramp in order to control airflow between adjacent internal spaces (Col 1 line 60 – Col 2 line 13).
Re claim 9, Skarbovig as modified discloses the method of manufacturing a multi-chamber closed structural element according to claim 7, Doolaege discloses the seal (17; [0027] disclosing welding) and/or the further seal (being an “and/or” clause) is produced by welding 17; [0027] disclosing welding), pressure welding (this is being interpreted as an “or clause” as well, as the language appears to be missing the word, “or”).
Re claim 16, Skarbovig as modified discloses the multi-chamber closed structural element according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the chamber profile has at least one through opening formed in the area of the inner wall and the outer wall and sealed by means of a further seal.
However, Ramp discloses wherein the chamber profile (12) has at least one through opening (at 30) formed in the area of the inner wall and the outer wall (of 12) and sealed by means of a further seal (Col 1 line 60 – Col 2 line 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-chamber closed structural element of Skarbovig wherein the chamber profile has at least one through opening formed in the area of the inner wall and the outer wall and sealed by means of a further as disclosed by Ramp in order to control airflow between adjacent internal spaces (Col 1 line 60 – Col 2 line 13).
Re claim 17, Skarbovig as modified discloses the multi-chamber closed structural element according to claim 16, Doolaege discloses the seal (17; [0027] disclosing welding) and/or the further seal (being an “and/or” clause) is produced by welding 17; [0027] disclosing welding), pressure welding (this is being interpreted as an “or clause” as well, as the language appears to be missing the word, “or”).
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarbovig (US 2010/0247249) in view of Crettol et al (“Crettol”) (US 8,161,687), Doolaege (US 2010/0003081) and Mountain (US 2010/0098353).
Re claim 10, Skarbovig as modified discloses the method of manufacturing a multi-chamber closed structural element according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the fluid is air, water, oil, fluid concrete or fluid plastic
However, Mountain discloses the fluid (5) is air, water, oil, fluid concrete ([0020]) or fluid plastic.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Skarbovig wherein the fluid is air, water, oil, fluid concrete or fluid plastic as disclosed by Mountain in order to increase strength, as concrete is stronger and more durable than grout. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 18, Skarbovig as modified discloses the multi-chamber closed structural element according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the fluid is air, water, oil, fluid concrete or fluid plastic
However, Mountain discloses the fluid (5) is air, water, oil, fluid concrete ([0020]) or fluid plastic.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-chamber closed structural element of Skarbovig wherein the fluid is air, water, oil, fluid concrete or fluid plastic as disclosed by Mountain in order to increase strength, as concrete is stronger and more durable than grout. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights