DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s amendments submitted on July 7, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 1, 10, and 15 are amended, claims 9 and 22-23 are canceled, and claims 15-21 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1-8 and 10-14 pending for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swift (US 2009/0324915)1,2 in view of Barthe (US 4759974)2.
With respect to claims 1-6 and 8, Swift teaches fiberglass insulation bound by formaldehyde free binders (paragraphs [0019], [0007]). The fiberglass materials may have glass fibers present in the range from about 75% to about 99% by weight (1-25 wt% binder) and may be cured (paragraphs [0017]-[0018]). In one embodiment the cured binders can be used as glass fiber binders in a cured fiberglass insulation product exemplified by SUMMIT loose-fill blowing insulation (paragraph [0088]). SUMMIT loose-fill blowing insulation typically requires a nominal average fiber diameter of about 9 ± about 1.5 ht and a nominal density of about 0.5 lbs/ft3 (paragraph [0088]). Below is a table summarizing various examples of SUMMIT insulation provided in paragraph [0089]).
R-value (paragraph [0089])
Installed minimum square foot weight lbs/ft2 (paragraph [0089])
ME (calculated)
49
0.8
61.25
44
0.7
62.86
38
0.6
63.33
30
0.5
60
26
0.4
65
22
0.3
73.33
19
0.3
63.33
13
0.2
65
In another embodiment the cured binders can be used as glass fiber binders in a cured fiberglass insulation product exemplified by JET STREAM loose-fill blowing insulation (paragraph [0090]). JET STREAM loose-fill bowing insulation typically requires a nominal average fiber diameter of about 7.5 ± about 1.5 ht and a nominal density of about 0.5 lbs/ft3 (paragraph [0090]). Below is a table summarizing various examples of JET STREAM insulation provided in paragraph [0091]).
R-value (paragraph [0091])
Installed minimum square foot weight lbs/ft2 (paragraph [0091])
ME (calculated)
49
0.8
61.25
44
0.7
62.86
38
0.6
63.33
30
0.4
75
26
0.4
65
22
0.3
73.33
19
0.3
63.33
13
0.2
65
In another embodiment the cured binders can be used as glass fiber binders in a cured fiberglass insulation product exemplified by high-density loose-fill blowing insulation (paragraph [0096]). High-density loose-fill bowing insulation typically requires a nominal density of about 0.7 lbs/ft3 (paragraph [0096]). Below is a table summarizing various examples of JETSTREAM insulation provided in paragraph [0097]).
R-value (paragraph [0097])
Installed minimum square foot weight lbs/ft2 (paragraph [0097])
ME (calculated)
49
1.3
37.69
44
1.2
36.67
38
1.0
38
30
0.8
37.5
26
0.7
37.14
22
0.6
36.67
19
0.5
38
13
0.3
43.33
The binder content and fiber diameter ranges of Swift substantially overlap the claimed range in the instant claims 1 and 8. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Swift, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
As discussed in paragraphs [0088]-[0091], the SUMMIT and JET STREAM loose-fill blowing insulation has a thickness, an area weight, and a density. Therefore the SUMMIT and JET STREAM loose-fill bowing insulation necessarily have a length, width, and thickness. By definition, the length is the longest dimension of an object, therefore the length of the SUMMIT and JET STREAM loose-fill bowing insulation will be greater than each of the width and the thickness.
Swift is silent as to at least 15% by weight, at least 30% by weight, at least 75% by weight of the glass fibers are oriented within +/- 15o of a plane parallel to the length of the insulation product.
Barthe teaches glass fibers sprayed with a binder and collected in the form of a blanket or mat which is passed through a curing oven (col. 1, lines 16-29). Barthe further teaches the thermal resistance of a fiber blanket will vary depending on the direction of orientation of the fibers to the measured heat flow, the resistance being greater when the fibers are oriented perpendicular to the direction of heat transfer (col. 4, lines 9-21). Accordingly, to maximize the thermal resistance of an insulating blanket, the fibers should be oriented to the maximum degree possible in a direction parallel to the collecting conveyor and the plane of the blanket formed thereon (col. 4, lines 9-21) (i.e., parallel to the length of the insulation product). The method of Barthe provides a fiber orientation predominately parallel to the direction of the conveyor, providing improved thermal resistance characteristics (col. 10, lines 59-62; col. 11, lines 40-43).
Since both Swift and Barthe teach insulation products formed from glass fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fibers of Swift to be oriented predominately (interpreted as more than 50% of fibers) in a direction parallel to the length of the fabric in order to provide improved thermal resistance characteristics.
With respect to claim 7, Swift teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Swift further teaches the SUMMIT loose-fill blowing insulation typically requires a nominal fiber diameter of about 9 ± about 1.5 ht (paragraph [0088]) and the JET STREAM loose-fill blowing insulation typically requires a nominal average fiber diameter of about 7.5 ± about 1.5 ht (paragraph [0090]).
With respect to the claimed fiber diameter range, it has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Swift teaches a glass fiber insulation product that meets the insulation property requirements of material efficiency of claim 1. Therefore the SUMMIT and JET STREAM loose-fill bowing insulation is expected to provide the same insulating properties as the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to enable the entire scope of the claimed invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed July 7, 2026.
In light of the amendments to the claims new prior art rejections have been applied above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Cited in IDS
2 Previously presented
Prosecution Insights