DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
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 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 1, 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conolly et al. (U.S. 2014/0356574 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Conolly et al. ‘574 teaches nonwoven layers and insulation layers that are metallized with a vapor deposited metal layer to increase the reflectivity of the textile/insulation laminate and form a barrier to the absorption of radiant energy (sections 0009 and 0010). The textile assembly of Conolly, et al. includes as claimed, a proximal and distal side (see figure 1a, for example), a first substrate 110 and a second substrate 140; an insulation layer 130 disposed adjacent to the second substrate; at least one of the first substrate layer and the second substrate layers is a radiant barrier and wherein the radiant barrier has an average thickness of between 20 – 150 nanometers (nm). The radiant barrier in the instant application is a metal layer provided on either the first or second substrates. Conolly, et al. teach the metal layer 120 disposed on the first substrate (paragraph 0034) and thus, a radiant barrier is present. The metal layer thickness may be between 10 – 200 nm and thus, is within and overlapping with the claimed range (paragraph 0054).
While Conolly, et al. do not specifically teach the fiber spacing to allow for infrared transparency such that said fiber spacing has a uniform thickness and predetermined spacing range such that it limits the actual contact with the surface area of the second substrate layer to less than 20% and wherein the fiber volume to air volume ratio in the insulation layer of 1:30 to 1:1000, both are obvious in light of the teachings of Conolly, et al. The reference teaches that the insulation layer is disposed in a pattern, density or texture (see paragraph 0043) such that a high percentage of the metal layer is still exposed through air gaps of said insulation layer. This configuration allows for at least 50% of the area of the surface of the metal layer on which the first insulation layer is disposed to not be in direct contact with the insulation layer. Thus, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have deposited a metal layer on either the nonwoven or insulating layer and joined the layers by ultrasonic welding because of the teachings of Conolly et al. It further would have been obvious to maximize the air space between the fibers of the insulation layer to increase the reflectivity of the metal layer. Contact of less than 20% of the insulation layer with the metal layer is within the taught range of at least 50% of the metal layer not being in contact with the insulation layer. It still further would have been obvious to have used a fiber volume to air volume in the insulation layer of 1:30 to 1:1000 as this range overlaps the taught ratio range of Conolly et al. Using even a greater volume of air per unit volume of fiber would result in the insulation layer being even more transparent to IR light and thus obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art provided that the insulation layer had enough fiber volume to maintain the air volume from collapsing during use of the laminate.
With respect to claim 3, Conolly, et al. teach that the metal layer may be on the first or second substrate (or both) and thus, the second substrate may be the radiant barrier and the first substrate may be a woven or non-woven (see paragraph 0030 – 0031 and 0041).
With respect to claim 4, figure 1A shows the second substrate covering almost the entire first substrate and thus, meets the range as claimed.
With respect to claims 5 – 8, the textile may be formed via ultrasonic welding (paragraph 0041) and thus, would have reinforcement structure and ribbing as claimed (see also figure 4b and 4c which is equivalent to applicant’s figures).
With respect to claims 9 – 10, a third substrate may be present (paragraph 0034) a further radiant barrier thereon (paragraph 0034).
With respect to claim 11, per Conolly, et al. the distal side of the first substrate layer can have a radiant barrier and insulation thereon (paragraph 0030 – 0034).
With respect to claim 12, per the teachings of Conolly, et al. the contact area between the insulation and the substrate is rendered obvious. Per Conolly, et al. the reference teaches that the insulation layer is disposed in a pattern, density or texture (see paragraph 0043) such that a high percentage of the metal layer is still exposed through air gaps of said insulation layer. This configuration allows for at least 50% of the area of the surface of the metal layer on which the first insulation layer is disposed to not be in direct contact with the insulation layer.
With respect to claim 13, per Conolly, et al. the substrate thicknesses may be adjusted and this the thickness relationship is obvious.
With respect to claim 14, substrate layers may be deposited via vapor deposition (paragraph 0053).
With respect to claim 15, Conolly, et al. teach a textile assembly comprising: an inner substrate and an insulation layer disposed distally of the inner substrate (figure 1A); a radiant barrier disposed distally of the insulation layer (paragraph 0034 – 0035); a further substrate disposed distally of the radiant barrier, in which the radiant barrier is fixed thereto (paragraph 0034 – 0035 a coating on the distal side of the further substrate (paragraph 0051 and 0053 – 0054).
Conolly, et al. may not specifically teach the fiber spacing to allow for infrared transparency such that said fiber spacing has a uniform thickness and predetermined spacing range such that it limits the actual contact with the surface area of the second substrate layer to less than 20% and wherein the fiber volume to air volume ratio in the insulation layer of 1:30 to 1:1000, both are obvious in light of the teachings of Conolly, et al. The reference teaches that the insulation layer is disposed in a pattern, density or texture (see paragraph 0043) such that a high percentage of the metal layer is still exposed through air gaps of said insulation layer. This configuration allows for at least 50% of the area of the surface of the metal layer on which the first insulation layer is disposed to not be in direct contact with the insulation layer. Thus, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have deposited a metal layer on either the nonwoven or insulating layer and joined the layers by ultrasonic welding because of the teachings of Conolly et al. It further would have been obvious to maximize the air space between the fibers of the insulation layer to increase the reflectivity of the metal layer. Contact of less than 20% of the insulation layer with the metal layer is within the taught range of at least 50% of the metal layer not being in contact with the insulation layer. It still further would have been obvious to have used a fiber volume to air volume in the insulation layer of 1:30 to 1:1000 as this range overlaps the taught ratio range of Conolly et al. Using even a greater volume of air per unit volume of fiber would result in the insulation layer being even more transparent to IR light and thus obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art provided that the insulation layer had enough fiber volume to maintain the air volume from collapsing during use of the laminate.
With respect to claim 16, Conolly, et al. teach a textile assembly comprising: first and second substrate (figure 1A), the first substrate being plastically deformed (paragraph 0041) and the second substrate conforming to the first substrate (figure 1A); wherein the first and second substrates may have coatings thereon (paragraph 0050, 0053 – 0054); the second substrate may be metal substrate (paragraph 0050) and the first substrate is a flexible substrate made of a non-woven or woven material (paragraph 0048).
Conolly, et al. however do not specifically teach the thickness and fiber spacing or the fiber volume to air volume ratio in the insulation layer of 1:30 to 1:1000. Both are obvious in light of the teachings of Conolly, et al. The reference teaches that the insulation layer is disposed in a pattern, density or texture (see paragraph 0043) such that a high percentage of the metal layer is still exposed through air gaps of said insulation layer. This configuration allows for at least 50% of the area of the surface of the metal layer on which the first insulation layer is disposed to not be in direct contact with the insulation layer. Thus, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have deposited a metal layer on either the nonwoven or insulating layer and joined the layers by ultrasonic welding because of the teachings of Conolly et al. It further would have been obvious to maximize the air space between the fibers of the insulation layer to increase the reflectivity of the metal layer. Contact of less than 20% of the insulation layer with the metal layer is within the taught range of at least 50% of the metal layer not being in contact with the insulation layer. It still further would have been obvious to have used a fiber volume to air volume in the insulation layer of 1:30 to 1:1000 as this range overlaps the taught ratio range of Conolly et al. Using even a greater volume of air per unit volume of fiber would result in the insulation layer being even more transparent to IR light and thus obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art provided that the insulation layer had enough fiber volume to maintain the air volume from collapsing during use of the laminate.
With respect to claim 17 – 18, the substrates may be deposited via vapor deposition (paragraph 0053) and a membrane may be disposed therebetween (paragraph 0031 – a protective coating may be disposed on the substrate itself and thus, a membrane would be present between the two.
With respect to claim 19, while the reference does not specifically teach an infrared transparency of at least 5%, the reference teaches that the density of the fibers may be optimized to provide insulation to conduction and reflection of the radiant barrier and thus, the infrared transparency is optimizable. Furthermore, the examiner contends that infrared transparency is a property which would be exhibited given the equivalent structure, composition and method of making between the product of Conolly, et al. and that of the instant invention.
With respect to claim 20, while the reference does not teach the specific thermal signature as recited, the examiner contends that it is a property which would be exhibited given the equivalent structure, composition and method of making between the product of Conolly, et al. and that of the instant invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed September 10, 2025, with respect to the 112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument, however, with respect to the 103 rejection over the prior art reference of Conolly, et al. is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained. Applicant argues that the fibre spacing which “allows for infrared transparency between a proximal side of the insulation layer and the distal side of the insulation layer, and said fibre spacing of the insulation layer, when uncompressed in the assembly, has a uniform thickness and predetermined spacing range such that it limits the actual contact with the surface area of the second substrate layer to less than 20% “ is not rendered obvious by Conolly, et al.
Applicant argues that Conolly, et al. teach gaps that are formed to create a reduced contact between the insulation layer and the metal layer. Applicant argues that this is a direct teaching away from the present disclosure where it is required that fibres cause the limit of contact between the insulation layer and the contact with the second substrate and not the perforations or absence of fibres. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the Examiner relies on the perforations within the layer to achieve reduction of contact and the present claims provide an advantage over the citation in that the insulation layer does not require further processing to generate perforation or cavities.
The Examiner contends that the textile of Conolly, et al. does render obvious the claimed contact area and fiber spacing. Turning to Applicant’s own disclosure, paragraph 0072 states that the fiber insulation material has voids or gaps [therein] and therefore, fibre contact area between the metal layer and the fibres of the insulation layer may be less than the surface contact area. The fiber insulation is to be formed with high porosity or high void space to improve reflectance of the radiant barrier (paragraph 0072). It is threfore, the voids within the fibres which create the property of the contact area and fiber spacing. The specification does not limit any process by which the voids are made and the insulation itself may be a non-woven, woven, knitted, a product with a mesh or lattice structure (paragraph 00128). Further cuts may be made in the mesh, for example, to create projections which space the adjacent layers from the lattice structure and the intersection regions or nodes of the lattice improve the radiant barrier as there is less insulation in contact with the barrier itself. Thus, based on these excerpts from the specification and comparing it to the teachings in Conolly, et al., the fact that the spacing or air gaps within the insulation layer of Conolly, et al. may be formed with a texture, design or perforated is equivalent to the processing which Applicant describes. There is no teaching away and the examiner contends that Conolly, et al. properly renders obvious the claim(s) as written.
In addition, Applicant also argues that the Examiner’s treatment of claim 16 is improper in that the waterproof film attached to the non-woven layer cannot render obvious the protective coating as claimed. The examiner, again, respectfully disagrees. Per paragraph 0072 of the instant specification, Applicant states that the protective coating can provide abrasion resistance AND/OR water repellency to the substrate or metal layer. Based on this teaching, Examiner contends that the waterproof film in Conolly, et al. thus renders obvious the protective coating as claimed. Furthermore, the instant application also teaches that the coating itself may be a film (paragraph 0081).
In conclusion, the Examiner contends that the prior art reference of Conolly, et al. is properly applied and the rejection is made final.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VERONICA EWALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8519. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri ~9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-270-7769. 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.
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783