DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on Oct. 28, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 13, 15-17, 21, 23-25, 28, 29, 31, 32 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fingerhut et al. (US 4685155) (“Fingerhut”), in view of Willard (US 2002/0102895 A1), Smith (US 4508776), Mikhael et al. (US 7157117 B2) (“Mikhael”), Kuznetz (US 4569874), and Haimerl (US 5285546).
With respect to claim 13, Fingerhut teaches a heat reflective composite (col. 2, lines 32-51, col. 3, lines 22-26) comprising a first substrate comprising a moisture vapor permeable material – element 14 (col. 6, lines 42-46), an insulating layer positioned adjacent the first substrate and comprising a textile – element 12 (col. 5, lines 66-68, col. 6, lines 1-3), the first substrate comprising a reflective layer comprised of an infrared-reflective metallic material which has been deposited (col. 6, lines 47-49), wherein the reflective layer is applied to the first substrate in a continuous layer – it is implied that the reflective layer is continuous as it is deposited on element 14 (col. 6, lines 47-52, Fig. 1).
Fingerhut is silent with respect to the infrared-reflective material having a thickness of between 10 nm and 200 nm. Smith discloses a metallized fabric suitable as a thermally-insulating material (abstr.), wherein the metal layer, such as a layer of aluminum, has a thickness from 20 to 30 nm (col. 3, lines 60-64). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 1; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to form the thickness of the infrared-reflective material of Fingerhut as disclosed in Smith, as such thickness is known in the art of fabrics suitable for thermally insulating materials.
Fingerhut discloses the insulating layer can be a nonwoven or woven material (col. 6, lines 2-3), but is silent with respect to the insulating layer comprising a non-woven open-structured textile.
Willard discloses an insulating fabric suitable for protective garments, the fabric being an open-structured textile – element 14 - (abstr., 0002, 0012-0014, 0022-0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to form the insulating layer – element 12 of Fingerhut as a non-woven open-structured textile, such as element 14 of Willard, as open-structured textiles are known to be used for thermal insulation. It has been held to select a known material based on its suitability of use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Since gaps 20 of Willard are formed generally perpendicularly to the two sides of the textile (Fig. 2), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that in the composite of Fingerhut and Willard the gaps would be formed generally perpendicularly relative to the reflective layer.
Regarding the recitation “such that the air and moisture transport properties of the first substrate are not substantially impeded by the infrared-reflective metallic material” describes how the composite functions when in use. Smith discloses that the aluminum layer is deposited by a vacuum deposition (col. 3, lines 60-64), as is the metallic layer, which can be an aluminum layer, of the instant application (par. [0053] and [0054] of the instant Specification), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the first substrate according to Fingerhut, Willard and Smith is capable to perform as intended.
Regarding the composite comprising a functional coating and a protective coating, such that the infrared-reflective metallic material is protected from oxidation, Mikhael discloses porous substrate wherein a functional coating and a protective coating are applied to a substrate, the coating imparting such functionality as oil and water repellency and wettability, release, antibacterial functionality and other functionalities (abstr., col. 6, lines 63-67, col. 7, lines 1-28). The polymeric coating is an acrylic coating (col. 7, lines 5-10, col. 8, lines 9-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to apply to the first substrate of Fingerhut a functional coating to impart on the substrate a desired functionality. Since Mikhael discloses acrylic coating, and acrylic coatings are disclosed in the instant specification as protecting from oxidation, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the coating of Mikhael is capable to perform as intended.
The references are silent with respect to a further substrate as recited in the claim. Kuznetz discloses a heat reflective composite (abstr.), including a further substrate – element 22 - positioned adjacent the first substrate – element 21 - the further substrate being a Goretex fabric comprising nylon (abstr., col. 4, lines 21-29), Goretex being known in the art as being waterproof. Kuznetz does not specify explicitly that the “Gortex fabric” comprises a functional coating. Haimerl discloses a shoe comprising a waterproof lining – element 16, the lining being a Goretex lining, wherein a nylon fabric comprises an inner coating and an outer protective coating (abstr., col. 7, lines 52-56, Fig. 1). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the further substrate of Kuznetz comprises a functional coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include a further substrate adjacent the first substrate of Fingerhut – element 16 corresponding to element 14 considered as the first substrate - to provide the composite of Fingerhut, Willard and Smith with waterproof property. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in the composite of Fingerhut, Willard and Smith comprising a further substrate according to Kuznetz and Haimerl, the first substrate – element 16 – would be positioned between the insulating layer – element 12 - and the further substrate.
Regarding claim 15, Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl teach the composite of claim 13. Fingerhut discloses the reflective metallic material such as Al (col. 6, lines 47-48). The emissivity of Al is known in the art, thus, it would be expected that the emissivity of the reflective metallic material of Fingerhut satisfies the recited range.
As to claim 16, Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl teach the composite of claim 13. Fingerhut discloses a second substrate – element 16 – positioned adjacent the insulating layer (col. 5, lines 15-20, Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 17, Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl teach the composite of claim 16. Since the first substrate is positioned on a side of the insulating layer so that the substrate is exposed through gaps in the textile, and the second substrate would be positioned on the side of the insulating layer opposite the first substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that portions of the surface of the second substrate would be exposed through the gaps of the insulating layer.
Regarding claim 21, Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz and Haimerl teach the composite of claim 13. Willard discloses a spacer fabric (0009, 0013, 0016, 0022).
Regarding claim 23, Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Kuznetz, and Haimerl teach the composite of claim 13. Kuznetz and Haimerl disclose functional coating of the further substrate is a hydrophobic coating (Kuznetz, col. 4, lines 21-29, Haimerl, col. 7, lines 52-56).
Regarding claim 24, Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl teach the composite of claim 13. Fingerhut discloses the first substrate comprises a textured surface – the first substrate can be quilted (col. 5, lines 38-40).
As to claim 25, Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl teach the composite of claim 24. Fingerhut discloses the reflective layer – element 20 – applied to a quilted surface of the first substrate – element 14 (col. 5, lines 11-15, 38-40, Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 28, Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl teach the composite of claim 13. Since Mikhael discloses acrylic coating, and acrylic coatings are disclosed in the instant specification as protecting from oxidation, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the coating of Mikhael is capable to perform as intended.
Regarding claim 29, Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl teach the composite of claim 13. Mikhael discloses the protective coating is the functional coating (col. 7, lines 5-10, col. 8, lines 9-12).
As to claim 31, Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl teach the composite of claim 13. Fingerhut discloses the first substrate is textured – element 14 can be woven (col. 6, lines 42-47).
With respect to claim 32, Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl teach the composite of claim 13. Fingerhut discloses the metallic material is applied to both sides of the first substate (col. 6, lines 47-49)
Claim 14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2005/0271821 A1) (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 14, Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl teach the composite of claim 13. The references are silent with respect to a coating layer comprising a functional material being deposited on the insulating layer such that it covers the insulating layer, and a surface of the infrared-reflective metallic material is exposed through the gaps. Lee discloses a coating layer comprising a functional material that is deposited on a textile to provide it with functions (abstr., 0007, 0008). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to provide the composite of Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl with a coating layer comprising a functional material deposited on the insulating layer, such that it covers the insulating layer and surfaces of the infrared-reflective metallic material exposed through the gaps, to provide the insulating layer of the composite with appropriate functionality.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fingerhut, in view of Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl, and further in view of Barnes et al. (US 2007/0166528 A1) (“Barnes”).
With respect to claim 19, Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl teach the composite of claim 13, but are silent with respect to the protective coating being a metal oxide coating. Barnes discloses a composite comprising a reflective layer comprising a protective coating, which is a metal oxide coating (abstr., 0002, 0004-0006, 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to provide the reflective layer of Fingerhut with a metal oxide coating for protection.
Claims 26 and 27 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fingerhut, in view of Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz and Haimerl, and further in view of Yializis et al. (US 2019/0210324 A1) (“Yializis”).
With respect to claim 26, Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl teach the composite of claim 13, but are silent with respect to the first substrate having a polymer undercoat, to which the infrared-reflective metallic material is applied. Yializis discloses an insulation material (abstr., 0002, 0017) wherein the infrared-reflective metallic material is applied to a polymer undercoat – element 420 (0042, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a polymer undercoat to the first substrate of Fingerhut, to which the metallic material is applied, as it is known in the art of insulating materials to provide polymer undercoat to which the infrared-reflective metallic materials are applied.
Regarding claim 27, Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, Haimerl and Yializis teach the composite of claim 26. The claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 27 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 27. The references teach the structure.
Claim 30 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fingerhut, in view of Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl, and further in view of Henderson (US 5500287).
With respect to claim 30, Fingerhut, Willard, Smith, Mikhael, Kuznetz, and Haimerl teach the composite of claim 13, but are silent with respect to the thickness of the infrared-reflective metallic material having a thickness as recited in the claim. Henderson discloses thermal insulating material that can be used for any article (abstr., col. 4, lines 10-12), wherein the thickness of IR reflective material such as aluminum is from 30 nm to 50 nm (col. 9, lines 53-62), which is within the recited range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the thickness of the aluminum coating of Fingerhut as disclosed in Henderson, as such thickness is known in the art of thermal insulating materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Oct. 28, 2025 have been fully considered.
The Applicant has argued that “Gortex fabric” relied on by the Examiner as corresponding to a further substrate comprising nylon material rendered waterproof by a Goretex coating, as Kuznetz discloses nylon fabric and discloses “”Gortex” fabric is suitable for this purpose” (col. 4, lines 28-29), would be understood within the art to be a membrane or a construction of material which includes a membrane and an outer fabric, and therefore there would be two layers, rather than a single layer as claimed. The Examiner notes in the present Office Action a reference Haimerl is cited for teaching a Goretex fabric comprising a polyamide fabric with a Goretex coating, as discussed above.
The Applicant argued use of the “Goretex” membrane would preclude a configuration of the further substrate positioned adjacent the first substrate. The Examiner notes the claim recites the further substrate comprising at least one functional coating, the combination of Kuznetz and Haimerl providing for the further substrate including a Goretex coating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783