DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 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 states “a slit that includes anchor-shaped hooks” but further states “includes a slit pattern;” so it would have been unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention if the slit pattern comprises a different or additional slit or is supposed to comprise a plurality of the slit that includes anchor-shaped hooks. For examination purposes, the latter will be assumed.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lea et al (EP 0800355 B1).
Regarding claims 1-6, and 9, Lea teaches an expanding material (i.e., expanded resilient product or resilient slab) having a pretensioned state defining a pretensioned plane, including a material (e.g., foam) including a slit that includes shapes in both upper and lower portions of the slit, wherein the material defines a tensions axis, is substantially in a plane in the pretensioned state; wherein the shapes in the upper portion of the slit are symmetrically reverse with respect to the shapes in the lower portion of the slit; and wherein the slit is perpendicular to the tension axis; and wherein each slit in the plurality of slits has a slit length (abstract, para 45)
Lea fails to teach in this embodiment the shapes are anchor shaped hooks, wherein the ends of the slit are curved; wherein each slit includes a first terminal end and a second terminal end; and wherein an imaginary straight line connects the first and second terminal ends of each of the slits in the plurality of the slits in a row and wherein the imaginary straight lines relating to a row of slits are all colinear with one another but not with a region of each of the slits between the terminal ends; and wherein slits in a first group of slits in the plurality of slits have a slit length that differs from the slit length of slits in a second group of slits in the plurality of slits.
However, in other embodiments of its expanded resilient product, Lea teaches that the slits may be anchor shaped hooks wherein each slit includes a first terminal end and a second terminal end; and wherein an imaginary straight line connects the first and second terminal ends of each of the slits in the plurality of the slits in a row and wherein the imaginary straight lines relating to a row of slits are all colinear with one another but not with a region of each of the slits between the terminal ends; and wherein each slit in the plurality of slits has a slit length (para 47, 56, fig 19, 25e).
In addition Lea teaches variations of the basic invention include modifying the geometry, placement, and number of the slits, and manipulating an unslit slab to create a corrugated geometry; and it can be seen that the effective density and IFD values for any given resilient material can be modified without incurring any material waste. The effective density and IFD values of a resilient material can be decreased more by creating more slits, longer slits, or longer protruding portions; wherein the initial IFD value of a resilient material can be modified to create "softer" material; and the shape of the slits, amount of distortion when expanded, and aspect ratio of the open spaces are all significant to the characteristics of the processed resilient material and its performance in the finished product (para 8, 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the shape, size, and pattern of the slits to optimize the effective density and IFD values of the expanded resilient product of Lea.
Regarding the limitation “a slit pattern wherein at least portions of the material are configured to rotate from the plane of the pretensioned state when tension is applied along the tension access, Lea suggest or would have otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the embodiment of the instant claims, as well as the method of making the embodiment of the instant claims (e.g., rotary die cutting) (para 52); so it is deemed to possess this functionality or property.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 7, Lea teaches the resilient product comprises foam (para 1); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use that of a polyester foam, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 8, Lea teaches examples in which the foam has thickness of 1 inch and 1.5 inch which lies within the range of the instant claims (para 45, 52).
Regarding claim 10, Lea teaches the structure and method of forming the expanded material (e.g., expanded resilient product) of the instant claim and that it is substantially planar in an pretensioned form (fig 15), so it is deemed to possess the property or functionality “wherein the slit pattern enables at least portions of the material to rotate 90 degrees or greater from the plane of the pretensioned form when tension is applied along the tension axis.” Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 11, Lea teaches the slits may be formed through that of a stamping die rotary die cutting drum; so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to shape the die accordingly to manufacture the expanded resilient product (para 52).
Regarding claim 12, Lea teaches the use of its expanded resilient product as lightweight packaging (para 54).
Regarding claim 13, Lea teaches its expanded resilient product formed into a cylindrical body (i.e., roll) (para 54).
Regarding claim 14, Lea teaches its expanded resilient product as a sheet (para 6-7).
Regarding claim 15, Lea teaches its expanded material may be enveloped (i.e., an envelope having the expanding material disposed in the envelope (para 7).
Regarding claim 16 and 17, Lea teaches a method of making the expanded resilient product comprising rotary die cutting and applying tension to the expanding material along a tension axis to cause the material to expand (para 6-7, 52).
Regarding claim 18, Lea teaches the structure and method of forming the expanded material (e.g., expanded resilient product) of the instant claim, so it is deemed to possess the property or functionality of the instant claim. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 19 and 20, Leah teaches wrapping the expanded resilient product around an item (e.g., pipe) (para 18); and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to duplicate the layer to add additional insulation. Lea teaches the structure and method of forming the expanded material (e.g., expanded resilient product) of the instant claim, so it is deemed to possess the property or functionality of instant claim 20. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights