Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emanuel (US 2015/0010350)
Regarding claim 1, Emanuel discloses a method, comprising: cutting a first panel from a sheet of material (Fig. 3, left element 10); cutting a second panel from a second sheet of material (Fig. 3, right element 10; para [0075]- in accordance with method 90, and the elongate structure is cut at the appropriate location to divide the structure into sections or panels 10, 50); repositioning the first panel and/or the
second panel so that a gap between the first panel and the second panel is within a tolerance and the first panel and the second panel do not overlap (note: see Fig. 6, connection of non-overlapping panels); securing the first panel to the second panel (para [0054]). End projecting members 36, 37, 46 and 47 of the male and female connecting member 8c, 8b respectively are sized and shaped such that when the male and female connecting members 8c and 8b are brought into alignment to form connecting member 20 they sit together with a minimal interstitial gap between the two sections as shown in FIG. 6).
Emanuel fails to specifically disclose in a single embodiment, positioning the first panel on a mandrel and positioning the second panel on the mandrel. However, in an alternate embodiment Emanuel discloses positioning the first panel on a mandrel and positioning the second panel on the mandrel (note: see Fig. 10, elements 10, 86; para [0067] - the forming die 80 of the invention is provided with a mandrel 86 such that the forming die 80 and mandrel 86 are configured to provide a panel profile for panel 10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the alternate embodiment mandrel in order to provide the predictable result of improving the aesthetics, based on routine experimentation (see para [0007]).
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emanuel (US 2015/0010350) as described above in view of Toshiaki (US 2006/0081098).
Regarding claim 2, Emanuel fails to disclose cutting the first panel comprises positioning a pattern on sheet of material and cutting around a perimeter of the pattern. Toshiaki, drawn to sheet cutting, discloses, wherein cutting the first panel comprises positioning a pattern on sheet of material and cutting around a perimeter of the pattern (para [0027]). A reference numeral 28 denotes a pattern in the part, which appears on the surface of the textile product after sewing, in the region inside the seam allowance; para [0028]). FIG. 4 shows an example in which the welding positions 26 are provided in a seam allowance 30 inside the cutting line 24. In the example, the welding positions 26 are in the seam allowance 30, and are hidden by sewing. Therefore, no trace of welding is exposed in the product). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the pattern positioning of Toshiaki with the method of Emanuel to improve the cutting accuracy (see Toshiaki, para [0004]). Toshiaki further discloses, wherein the perimeter comprises curved edges (note: see Fig. 4, 5 in Toshiaki perimeters have curved edges).
Regarding claim 3, Toshiaki disclose does not specifically disclose measuring the first panel and the second panel to ensure the first panel and the second panel correspond to the perimeter of the pattern within a given tolerance. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, further comprising measuring the first panel and the second panel to ensure the first panel and the second panel correspond to the perimeter of the pattern within a given tolerance, to improve the accuracy of the fit for the cut shape. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ a transparent covering sheet with the panels of Emanuel to improve the ease of use and reduce the costs.
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emanuel (US 2015/0010350) in view of Patry (US Patent 3,581,450).
Regarding claim 10, Emanuel does not disclose securing the first panel to the second panel comprises adhering a covering material over the edge of the first panel and the edge of the second panel and the gap to create a seam and join the first panel to the second panel. Patry, drawn to panel construction, discloses securing the first panel to the second panel comprises adhering a covering material over the edge of the first panel and the edge of the second panel and the gap to create a seam and join the first panel to the second panel (Col 2, In 3-8- FIG. 1 discloses our invention in a sectional view of the improved expansion joint cover as installed between adjacent panels of a roof deck. Block members 11 and 12 are provided along the edges of the expansion joint to provide nailing strips for the expansion joint cover. The joint per se is actually the space 13 between panels 14 and 15). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the gap covering of Patry with the method of Emanuel to improve the panel attachment reliability and flexibility.
Regarding claim 11, Emanuel discloses the securing the first panel to the second panel comprises applying pressure and/or heat to the seam (para [0025] - heating the forming die to cure the resin such that a rigid profile is formed that corresponds to the shape of the forming die).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach or make obvious the concept of wherein the pattern comprises one or more slits or openings and the surface of the mandrel comprises a longitudinal marking along a length of the surface of the mandrel and periodic markings perpendicular to the longitudinal marking, and the method further comprises marking the first panel using the one or more slits or openings while the pattern is positioned on the first panel in the manner claimed by the applicant.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not teach or make obvious the concept of inserting a separator between the first panel and/or the second panel and the mandrel to permit relative local movement of the first panel and/or the second panel to the mandrel by separating the frictional contact of the first panel and/or the second panel from the surface of the mandrel in the manner claimed by the applicant.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not teach or make obvious the concept of the mandrel comprises an internal light configured to illuminate through the surface of the mandrel, and the method further comprising using the internal light of the mandrel to assign in an alignment of the first panel and/or the second panel on the surface of the mandrel and confirm that the gap exists between the first panel and the second panel along an entire common length between the first panel and the second panel by observing the light between the first panel and the second panel in the manner claimed by the applicant.
Claims 4-9 and 12-14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES D SELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1237. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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 D. SELLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/JAMES D SELLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights