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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 after “base” should have a semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. There is no description of what an outer or inner truss are.
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 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 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.
Regarding claim 7: It is unclear how changing the position of the slats changes their insulative properties. What is considered their insulative properties?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the panel" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the phase change material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14: It is unclear what an outside truss is. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the panels" in line 1 and “the outside truss” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15: It is unclear what an inside truss is. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the panels" in line 1 and “the inside truss” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the internal temperature reading" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the external temperature" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 20: It is unclear what “machine learning” refers to. Additionally, it is unclear how machine learning is used to actuate the inflator.
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) 1-13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alderman (S PGPub No 2003/0061776) in view of Okugawa et al. (US PGPub No 2023/0146715) (“Okugawa”).
Referring to claim 1: Alderman teaches a dynamic insulation system comprising: a base (figure 6, panel adjacent bottom 620); a cap (figure 6, panel adjacent top item 620); and an inflator (item 185). Alderman does not teach one or more slats attached at a first end to the base and the cap attached to a second end of the one or more slats. However, Okugawa teaches one or more slats (item 80) attached at a first end to the base and the cap attached to a second end of the one or more slats (figure 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Alderman with the connected slats taught by Okugawa in order to provide a distributed holding or support force between the base and cap to maintain a shape of a panel.
Referring to claim 2: Alderman an Okugawa teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Okugawa teaches wherein the one or more slats have an uninflated position (figure 13). Uninflated positions reduce size for transportation or reduce effectiveness when not deployed.
Referring to claim 3: Alderman and Okugawa teach all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Okugawa teaches wherein the one or more slats have an inflated position that is different from the uninflated position (figure 10). Changing configurations changes the effectiveness of a panel.
Referring to claim 4: Alderman and Okugawa teach all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Additionally, Alderman teaches wherein to be positioned in the inflated position the base and the cap move relative to each other (figures 2 and 3).
Referring to claim 5: Alderman and Okugawa teach all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Alderman teaches an indicator (item 175).
Referring to claim 6: Alderman and Okugawa teach all the limitations of claim 5 as noted above. Additionally, Alderman teaches wherein the indicator communicates with a temperature sensor (paragraph 0028).
Referring to claim 7: Alderman and Okugawa teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein the position of the slats changes their insulative properties. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that changing the slates of Okugawa from retracted to extended would result in further insulation as the panel would be inflated and provide increased insulative values.
Referring to claim 8: Alderman and Okugawa teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Okugawa teaches wherein the one or more slats combine to create a panel (figure 11). It would have been obvious that the slats shown in figure 11 of Okugawa combine to create a panel when folded flat.
Referring to claim 9: Alderman and Okugawa teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Alderman teaches wherein the panel is sized to fit and attach to one or more trusses (figure 1).
Referring to claim 10: Alderman and Okugawa teach all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Additionally, Alderman teaches a phase change material (item 130).
Referring to claim 11: Alderman and Okugawa teach all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Additionally, Alderman teaches the phase change material is positioned above the panel (figure 5).
Referring to claim 12: Alderman and Okugawa teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Additionally, Alderman teaches the phase change material is positioned below the panel (figure 1).
Referring to claim 13: Alderman and Okugawa teach all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Additionally, Alderman teaches wherein the panel is positioned above existing insulation (figure 1).
Referring to claim 16: Alderman and Okugawa teach all the limitations of claim 6 as noted above. Additionally, Alderman teaches wherein the indicator actuates the inflator (paragraph 0028).
Referring to claim 17: Alderman and Okugawa teach all the limitations of claim 16 as noted above. Additionally, Alderman teaches wherein the indicator actuates the inflator based on the internal temperature reading (paragraph 028).
Referring to claim 18: Alderman and Okugawa teach all the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Additionally, Alderman teaches wherein the indicator actuates the inflator based on the external temperature ( paragraph 0028).
Referring to claim 19: Alderman and Okugawa teach all the limitations of claim 18 as noted above. Additionally, Alderman teaches wherein the indicator actuates the inflator based on the difference between the external temperature and the internal temperature (paragraph 0028).
Referring to claim 20: Alderman and Okugawa teach all the limitations of claim 18 as noted above. Additionally, Alderman teaches wherein the indicator actuates the inflator based on the difference between the external temperature and the internal temperature (paragraph 0028) but is silent with regards to machine learning. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to recognize that based on the disclosure in paragraph 0028 of Alderman use of machine learning to analyze and make a determination from the temperature differences would be obvious to automate the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights