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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed with the request for continued examination on 22 June 2026. Claims 1, 3, 19 & 20 have been amended. Claims 4, 5 & 10 were cancelled previously. Thus, claims 1-3, 6-9 & 11-20 are pending in this application.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-3, 11-15, 19 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (CN 107606372 A; hereafter Luo) in view of Matsushita et al. (JP 2004-342368 A; hereafter Matsushita) and Cohen et al. (US 2004/0126597 A1; hereafter Cohen).
Examination note: Cited portions of Luo and Matsushita below refer to corresponding English translations provided with previous actions on 1/28/2025 and 6/25/2024, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Luo discloses a thermal insulation device (various embodiments in figs. 1-3) comprising:
an insulation layer (2; “heat insulating material”) having a first (inner) surface proximate a cooling conduit (1; “low temperature fluid pipeline”) and a second (outer) surface opposing the first surface;
a heater layer (incl. 3, “self-regulating heating cable 3” & 4, “heat conducting material 4”) having an inner surface in direct contact with the second surface of the insulation layer (in figs. 1 & 2, heater cable 3 is in direct contact with the insulation 2; in fig. 3, heat conduction material 4, which may be considered a part of the heater layer, is in directed contact with the insulation 2 and thus the inner surface of the combined heater layer is still in direct contact with the second surface of the insulation layer 2) and an outer surface opposite the inner surface, the heater layer configured to provide a uniform heating (see abstract: “heat is uniformly transferred to the outer peripheral surface of the low-temperature fluid pipeline”) to the second surface of the insulation layer to inhibit frost or ice buildup on at least the second surface of the insulation layer (see, e.g., “Invention Content” section: “… the invention can complete and substantially avoid vapour being condensed…”; “…uniformly conducting the automatic temperature control heating emitted heat to transfer to the whole coated low temperature fluid pipeline of heat insulation material, so as to fully avoid the pipeline surface condensation…”); and
a protective layer (incl. at least “coating 5”; “the covering material 5 is mainly to provide protection”) including a second dielectric layer (i.e., 5; see below), the second dielectric layer disposed in direct contact with the outer surface of the heater layer (i.e., in figs. 1 & 2, the second dielectric layer 5 is in direct contact with the outer surface of heat conducting sub-layer 4 of the heater layer; in fig. 3, the second dielectric layer 5 is in direct contact with the outer surface of the heating cable 3 and the outer surface of the heat conducting sub-layer 4 of the heater layer) such that the heater layer (incl. 3 & 4) is disposed between the insulation layer (2) and the second dielectric layer (5) of the protective layer, and the heater layer is configured to provide heating to an outer surface of the protective layer to inhibit frost or ice buildup on the outer surface of the protective layer (i.e., as configured, the heater layer, while heating the second surface of the insulation layer, would also serve to heat the protective layer, including an outer surface of the protective layer, which would inhibit frost or ice buildup on the outer surface of the protective layer).
Regarding the limitation wherein the protective layer includes a second dielectric layer, Luo discloses that the protective layer (5) may be provided as “a flexible material such as PU, rubber, plastic, cloth or leather” (see “specific execution examples” section). As would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art, polyurethane (PU), rubber, and plastics, are generally poor electrical conductors and as such, unless specifically formulated with conductive additives (e.g., metallic or carbon fiber fillers), such materials would be understood to be dielectric (i.e., electrically insulating). It is noted that applicant’s own specification admits that polyurethane (PU), rubber, and several common plastics (polyethylene, polyester, PTFE, FEP, PFA) are dielectric materials (see para. 23, lines 11-13).
As Luo does not explicitly disclose or require the addition of such conductive additives, the layer 5 of the protective layer, at least when provided as polyurethane [PU], plastic or rubber, as suggested by Luo, would be reasonably understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art as being a layer formed from a dielectric material (i.e., a second dielectric layer).
Luo does not explicitly disclose the additional limitations wherein the heater layer includes a dielectric layer and a resistive heating element, the resistive heating element embedded in the dielectric layer so as to be spaced apart from the outer surface (however, as best understood, the self-regulating heater cables of the type disclosed by Luo would generally comprise at least one resistive heating element at least coated by a dielectric layer); or wherein the protective layer includes a vapor barrier layer, wherein the vapor barrier layer inhibits atmospheric moisture diffusing into the insulation layer.
Matsushita teaches (fig. 9; paras. 39-43) a heater layer (14) suitable for use in heating tubular / pipe systems (e.g., as in the devices of figs. 5-8), said heating layer (14) comprising a dielectric layer (incl. dielectric / insulating films 36a, 36b, which may be polyimide, FEP, PFA or PET [para. 42]) and a resistive heating element (38; e.g., nichrome, stainless steel, iron-nickel, or copper-nickel alloys in the form of a foil [para. 41]), the resistive heating element (38) embedded in the dielectric layer so as to be spaced apart from the outer surface (i.e., as shown in fig. 9, the resistive heating element 38 is embedded in the combined dielectric layer formed by films 36a and 36b and spaced apart from the outer surfaces; and otherwise may be considered particularly embedded within the film 36b as shown) to provide uniform heating (para 40: “The resistor 38 is uniformly arranged…so that the surface of the insulating film is uniformly heated…”).
Examination Note: Matsushita further explains that the two polyimide films may be bonded together either by adhesive (which may be a thermosetting polyamide or a fusion / heat-melt polyimide) or “heat sealed and directly bonded” (para. 43). When such films are bonded by polyimide adhesives or are otherwise directly heat-bonded to one another, the resistive heating element would be embedded within the resulting bonded dielectric layer, which may otherwise be considered to have an integral structure after such bonding.
Matsushita explains that such a heater layer (i.e., a layered heater) is preferred over a conventional band-type heater as it is more compact and uses less power (see paras 7, 12 & 13, etc.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal insulation device of Luo such that the heater layer comprises a dielectric layer (e.g., a layered polyimide construction) and a resistive heating element (e.g., a metal foil) embedded in the dielectric layer so as to be spaced apart from the outer surface, in view of the teachings of Matsushita, as the simple substitution of one known heater layer arrangement (e.g., the original heater layer arrangement of Luo, including a dual-core self-regulating heating band 3 and a separate sub-layer of heat conducting material 4) for another (i.e., the layered polyimide and metal foil heater layer of Matsushita) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a more compact and power-efficient heating arrangement, as suggested by Matsushita).
Cohen teaches (e.g., fig. 1) a facing / covering arrangement for protecting an underlying insulation layer, e.g., for a pipe or duct (i.e., “providing a vapor barrier and a weather seal” for such pipe insulation; para. 1) may comprise an outermost vapor barrier layer (12), which may be a metal foil or a metalized polymer foil (para. 34), disposed on a polymer layer (14).
Cohen explains that the foil layer provides a vapor seal, weather resistance, and a “desirable exterior appearance”, while the polymer layer provides “puncture and tear resistance” (col. 31, lines 6-8), while the combination of materials provides “the desired fire resistance and resistance to flame spread” (col. 31, lines 9-11).
Cohen teaches that the polymer layer (14) may be polyester film, or another polymer film “such as… polyethylene, polyurethane, … or polytetrafluoroethylene” (para. 35). As best understood, such polymer film layers may reasonably be seen as dielectric layers. It is noted that many of the materials listed, including polyester, polyethylene, polyurethane and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene), are identified in applicant’s own specification as being dielectric materials (e.g., see para. 23, lines 10-14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal insulation device of Luo such that the protective layer includes a vapor barrier layer (i.e., a metal foil or metallized polymer foil vapor barrier layer) as an outermost layer surrounding the second dielectric layer (i.e., the layer of polyurethane, plastic or rubber 5 of Luo; corresponding to the polymer layer of Cohen), wherein the vapor barrier layer inhibits atmospheric moisture diffusing into the insulation layer, in view of the teachings of Cohen, as the use of a known technique (i.e., providing a metallic or metallized foil vapor barrier as an outermost layer around an outer polymer protective layer of an insulated pipe device, as in Cohen) to improve a similar device (the thermal insulation device of Luo, having an inner pipe insulation layer and a surrounding outer polymer protective layer) in the same way (e.g., providing for an improved vapor seal and weather resistance between the surrounding environment and the outer side of the insulation layer, and otherwise providing for a ”desirable exterior appearance”, as suggested by Cohen).
As a result, all of the limitations of claim 1 are met, or are otherwise rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, the device of Luo, as modified above, reads on the additional limitations wherein the insulation layer (2) defines a tubular body, the first surface being an inner surface (i.e., in contact with the conduit 1) and the second surface being an outer surface (i.e., facing / in contact with the heater layer) of the tubular body (see figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, the device of Luo, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the heater layer (incl. 3 & 4 in the original configuration; as modified to be, e.g., a layered polyamide heater in view of Matsushita above) surrounds the insulation layer (2), and the protective layer (incl. at least second dielectric layer 5, as modified to further include the outermost the vapor barrier layer in view of Cohen above) surrounds the heater layer (see figs. 2 & 3).
Luo explains, with respect to the original heater cable, that although the cable is shown as linearly arranged, the cable can also be spirally wound “to obtain better heating effect”. Thus, the original heater layer may be considered to “surround” the insulation layer when spirally wound as such. Further, the heat conduction layer 4 of the heater layer of Luo, whether inward or outward of the heater cable, is clearly arranged to surround the insulation layer (figs. 2 & 3).
In any case, the heater layer taught by Matsushita is clearly depicted as being configured to fully surround an underlying tubular layer (see figs. 5-8) such that the device of Luo, when modified in view of Matsushita to comprise such a heater layer, would reasonably have been arranged in a corresponding manner wherein the heater layer surrounds the insulation layer.
Regarding the limitation wherein the heater layer has a wattage of less than 1 watt per square inch, Luo discloses that, while the heater should provide enough heat to avoid pipeline condensation, efficiency / reduction of energy consumption is also a factor to be considered (e.g., pg. 3 of the translation). In several examples, Luo discloses that the heater may adjust the output power as needed and so may use a power less than 40 watts per meter (pg. 5; see also pg. 5). In later examples, depending on the heating required, the actual power used may be less, e.g. 4.4 W, 6.6 W or 28.6 W (see pg. 6)(Note that these appear to be linear measures, not power density per unit area).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the heater layer to have any wattage as may be required for a particular application, including a wattage less than 1 watt per square inch, as a matter of routine engineering design / optimization, in order to provide sufficient heat to avoid condensation, while also considering energy efficiency and avoiding heating of the cold fluid within the pipeline (i.e., as suggested by Luo).
Regarding claim 11, with respect to the limitation wherein the vapor barrier layer is an aluminum material, Cohen further teaches that the vapor barrier layer may be made of a variety of metal foils, including aluminum foil (para. 34, lines 2-3). If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal insulation device of Luo, as otherwise modified above, such that the vapor barrier layer is an aluminum material, in view of the teachings of Cohen, especially considering that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 12, with respect to the limitation wherein the vapor barrier layer is a metal film on a polymer film, Cohen further teaches that the vapor barrier layer may be made of a metalized polymer foil wherein a metal is vapor deposited on a polymer substrate (i.e., resulting in a metal film on a polymer film, as understood; para. 34, lines 6-13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal insulation device of Luo, as otherwise modified above, such that the vapor barrier layer is metal film on a polymer film, in view of the teachings of Cohen, especially considering that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 13, with respect to the limitation wherein the wherein the second dielectric layer is a polyimide material or a reinforced silicone rubber material, as previously noted, Luo discloses that the second dielectric layer 5 is “mainly to provide protection” and can be “a flexible material such as PU, rubber, plastic, cloth or leather”.
Similarly, Cohen teaches that the dielectric (polymer) layer (14) maybe made of polyester film or “other polymer films such as polypropylene, polyethylene, polyurethane, Nylon®, Dacron®, Kevlar®, or polytetrafluoroethylene” (para. 35). Cohen explains that the polymers are intended to provide “puncture and tear resistance” (para. 31).
Matsushita otherwise teaches that polyimide may be provided as a film and is “particularly preferable because of its excellent mechanical strength, heat resistance, and electrical properties” (para. 42, lines 3-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal insulation device of Luo, as otherwise modified above, such that the dielectric layer is a polyimide material or a reinforced silicone rubber material (i.e., a polyimide material), in view of the combined teachings of Luo, Cohen, and Matsushita, as Luo discloses that the protective second dielectric layer may be formed from a flexible material such as plastic, Cohen similarly suggests that a dielectric polymer layer for protection of an insulation layer may be formed from a wide variety of plastic films, and Matsushita otherwise teaches that polyimide is suitable for use as a protective polymer film and provides desirable properties such as mechanical strength, heat resistance, and electrical resistance, especially considering that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that the use of polyimide as a protective dielectric layer in pipe heating applications is otherwise well-known in the art. See, e.g. US 2010/0307622 A1 to Lee et al., cited in previous Office actions.
Regarding claim 14, the device of Luo, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the heater layer comprises a polyimide heater.
As noted for claim 1, Matsushita suggests that polyimide is “particularly preferable because of its excellent mechanical strength, heat resistance, and electrical properties” (para. 42, lines 3-4). In paragraphs 57 & 75, Matsushita explicitly references the above construction as a “polyimide heater” (“It is preferable to use the above described polyimide heater formed by sandwiching a resistor between polyimide as the planar heating element 14.”).
Regarding claim 15, the device of Luo, as modified in view of Matsushita above to include a polyimide heater having a resistor element in the form of a foil laminated between two polyimide film layers, further reads on the additional limitation wherein the heater layer comprises a layered heater (i.e., as the heater layer comprises layers of dielectric polyimide and a layer of resistor foil). To promote compact prosecution, is it noted that other layered heaters, in general, are well-known in the art (e.g., see WO 95/15670 to Lawson et al.).
Regarding claim 19, Luo discloses a thermal insulation device (various embodiments in figs. 1-3) comprising:
a tubular insulation layer (2; “heat insulating material”) defining a central opening (see figs. 2 & 3) for receiving a coolant conduit therein (1; “low temperature fluid pipeline”);
a heater layer (incl. 3, “self-regulating heating cable 3” & 4, “heat conducting material 4”) disposed around the tubular insulation layer, the heater layer having an inner surface in direct contact with an outer surface of the tubular insulation layer (in figs. 1 & 2, heater cable 3 is in direct contact with the outer surface of insulation 2; in fig. 3, heat conduction material 4, which may be considered a part of the heater layer, is in directed contact with the outer surface of insulation 2 and thus the inner surface of the combined heater layer is still in direct contact with the outer surface of the insulation layer) and an outer surface opposite the inner surface, the heater layer configured to provide a uniform heating to the tubular insulation layer to inhibit frost or ice buildup on at least the outer surface of the tubular insulation layer (see, e.g., “Invention Content” section: “… the invention can complete and substantially avoid vapour being condensed…”; “…uniformly conducting the automatic temperature control heating emitted heat to transfer to the whole coated low temperature fluid pipeline of heat insulation material, so as to fully avoid the pipeline surface condensation…”); and
a protective layer (incl. at least “coating 5”; “the covering material 5 is mainly to provide protection”) including a second dielectric layer (i.e., 5; see below), the second dielectric layer disposed in direct contact with the outer surface of the heater layer (i.e., in figs. 1 & 2, the second dielectric layer 5 is in direct contact with the outer surface of heat conducting sub-layer 4 of the heater layer; in fig. 3, the second dielectric layer 5 is in direct contact with the outer surface of the heating cable 3 and the outer surface of the heat conducting sub-layer 4 of the heater layer), and the heater layer is configured to provide heating to an outer surface of the protective layer to inhibit frost or ice buildup on the outer surface of the protective layer (i.e., as configured, the heater layer, while heating the insulation layer, would also serve to heat the protective layer, including an outer surface of the protective layer, which would inhibit frost or ice buildup on the outer surface of the protective layer).
Regarding the limitation wherein the heater layer has a wattage of less than 1 watt per square inch, Luo discloses that, while the heater should provide enough heat to avoid pipeline condensation, efficiency / reduction of energy consumption is also a factor to be considered (e.g., pg. 3 of the translation). In several examples, Luo discloses that the heater may adjust the output power as needed and so may use a power less than 40 watts per meter (pg. 5; see also pg. 5). In later examples, depending on the heating required, the actual power used may be less, e.g. 4.4 W, 6.6 W or 28.6 W (see pg. 6)(Note that these appear to be linear measures, not power density per unit area).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the heater layer to have any wattage as may be required for a particular application, including a wattage less than 1 watt per square inch, as a matter of routine engineering design / optimization, in order to provide sufficient heat to avoid condensation, while also considering energy efficiency and avoiding heating of the cold fluid within the pipeline (i.e., as suggested by Luo).
Regarding the limitation wherein the protective layer includes a second dielectric layer, Luo discloses that the protective layer (5) may be provided as “a flexible material such as PU, rubber, plastic, cloth or leather” (see “specific execution examples” section). As would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art, polyurethane (PU), rubber, and plastics, are generally poor electrical conductors and as such, unless specifically formulated with conductive additives (e.g., metallic or carbon fiber fillers), such materials would be understood to be dielectric (i.e., electrically insulating). It is noted that applicant’s own specification admits that polyurethane (PU), rubber, and several common plastics (polyethylene, polyester, PTFE, FEP, PFA) are dielectric materials (see para. 23, lines 11-13).
As Luo does not explicitly disclose or require the addition of such conductive additives, the layer 5 of the protective layer, at least when provided as polyurethane [PU], plastic or rubber, as suggested by Luo, would be reasonably understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art as being a layer formed from a dielectric material (i.e., a dielectric layer).
Luo does not explicitly disclose the additional limitations wherein the heater layer includes a dielectric layer and a resistive heating element embedded in the dielectric layer so as to be spaced apart from the outer surface (however, as best understood, the self-regulating heater cables of the type disclosed by Luo would generally comprise at least one resistive heating element at least coated by a dielectric layer); or wherein the protective layer includes a vapor barrier layer, the vapor barrier layer in direct contact with the second dielectric layer, wherein the vapor barrier layer forms an outermost layer of the thermal insulation device and inhibits atmospheric moisture diffusing into the tubular insulation layer.
Matsushita teaches (fig. 9; paras. 39-43) a heater layer (14) suitable for use in heating tubular / pipe systems (e.g., as in the devices of figs. 5-8), said heating layer (14) comprising a dielectric layer (incl. dielectric / insulating films 36a, 36b, which may be polyimide, FEP, PFA or PET [para. 42]) and a resistive heating element (38; e.g., nichrome, stainless steel, iron-nickel, or copper-nickel alloys in the form of a foil [para. 41]), the resistive heating element (38) embedded in the dielectric layer so as to be spaced apart from the outer surface (i.e., as shown in fig. 9, the resistive heating element 38 is embedded in the combined dielectric layer formed by films 36a and 36b and spaced apart from the outer surfaces; and otherwise may be considered particularly embedded within the film 36b as shown) to provide uniform heating (para 40: “The resistor 38 is uniformly arranged…so that the surface of the insulating film is uniformly heated…”).
Examination Note: Matsushita further explains that the two polyimide films may be bonded together either by adhesive (which may be a thermosetting polyamide or a fusion / heat-melt polyimide) or “heat sealed and directly bonded” (para. 43). When such films are bonded by polyimide adhesives or are otherwise directly heat-bonded to one another, the resistive heating element would be embedded within the resulting bonded dielectric layer, which may otherwise be considered to have an integral structure after such bonding.
Matsushita explains that such a heater layer (i.e., a layered heater) is preferred over a conventional band-type heater as it is more compact and uses less power (see paras 7, 12 & 13, etc.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal insulation device of Luo such that the heater layer comprises a dielectric layer (e.g., a layered polyimide construction) and a resistive heating element (e.g., a metal foil) embedded in the dielectric layer so as to be spaced apart from the outer surface, in view of the teachings of Matsushita, as the simple substitution of one known heater layer arrangement (e.g., the original heater layer arrangement of Luo, including a dual-core self-regulating heating band 3 and a separate sub-layer of heat conducting material 4) for another (i.e., the layered polyimide and metal foil heater layer of Matsushita) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a more compact and power-efficient heating arrangement, as suggested by Matsushita).
Cohen teaches (e.g., fig. 1) a facing / covering arrangement for protecting an underlying insulation layer, e.g., for a pipe or duct (i.e., “providing a vapor barrier and a weather seal” for such pipe insulation; para. 1) may comprise an outermost vapor barrier layer (12), which may be a metal foil or a metalized polymer foil (para. 34), disposed in direct contact with an underlying protective polymer layer (14), wherein the vapor barrier layer forms an outermost layer of the device.
Cohen explains that the foil layer provides a vapor seal, weather resistance, and a “desirable exterior appearance”, while the polymer layer provides “puncture and tear resistance” (col. 31, lines 6-8), and the combination of materials provides “the desired fire resistance and resistance to flame spread” (col. 31, lines 9-11).
Cohen teaches that the polymer layer (14) may be polyester film, or another polymer film “such as… polyethylene, polyurethane, … or polytetrafluoroethylene” (para. 35). As best understood, such polymer film layers may reasonably be seen as dielectric layers. It is noted that many of the materials listed, including polyester, polyethylene, polyurethane and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene), are identified in applicant’s own specification as being dielectric materials (e.g., see para. 23, lines 10-14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal insulation device of Luo such that the protective layer includes a vapor barrier layer (i.e., a metal foil or metallized polymer foil vapor barrier layer) in direct contact with the second dielectric layer (i.e., the layer of polyurethane, plastic or rubber 5 of Luo; corresponding to the polymer layer of Cohen), wherein the vapor barrier layer forms an outermost layer of the thermal insulation device (i.e., surrounding the second dielectric layer) and inhibits atmospheric moisture diffusing into the insulation layer, in view of the teachings of Cohen, as the use of a known technique (i.e., providing a metallic or metallized foil vapor barrier as an outermost layer disposed directly on and around an outer polymer protective layer of an insulated pipe device, as in Cohen) to improve a similar device (the thermal insulation device of Luo, having an inner pipe insulation layer and a surrounding outer polymer protective layer) in the same way (e.g., providing for an improved vapor seal and weather resistance between the surrounding environment and the outer side of the insulation layer, and otherwise providing for a ”desirable exterior appearance”, as suggested by Cohen).
As a result, all of the limitations of claim 19 are met, or are otherwise rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Luo discloses a thermal insulation device (various embodiments in figs. 1-3) comprising:
a tubular insulation layer (2; “heat insulating material”) defining a central opening (see figs. 2 & 3) for receiving a coolant conduit therein (1; “low temperature fluid pipeline”), the tubular insulation layer having an inner tubular surface proximate the coolant conduit and an outer tubular surface (as shown);
a heater layer (incl. 3, “self-regulating heating cable 3” & 4, “heat conducting material 4”) disposed between the tubular insulation layer and a protective layer (incl. at least “coating 5”; “the covering material 5 is mainly to provide protection”), the heater layer having an inner surface (in figs. 1 & 2, inner surface of at least heater cable 3 is in contact with the outer surface of insulation 2; in fig. 3, inner surface of at least heat conduction material 4, which may be considered a part of the heater layer, is in contact with the outer surface of insulation 2) opposite an outer surface, the outer surface proximate the protective layer (i.e., in figs. 1 & 2, layer 5 is in contact with the outer surface of heat conducting sub-layer 4 of the heater layer; in fig. 3, the layer 5 is in contact with the outer surface of the heating cable 3 and the outer surface of the heat conducting sub-layer 4 of the heater layer), the heater layer configured to provide a uniform heating to the tubular insulation layer to inhibit frost or ice buildup on at least the outer tubular surface of the tubular insulation layer (see, e.g., “Invention Content” section: “… the invention can complete and substantially avoid vapour being condensed…”; “…uniformly conducting the automatic temperature control heating emitted heat to transfer to the whole coated low temperature fluid pipeline of heat insulation material, so as to fully avoid the pipeline surface condensation…”); and
the protective layer disposed around the tubular insulation layer (2; i.e., the protective layer incl. 5 is disposed around the tubular insulation layer as shown in figs. 2 & 3; with the heater layer, incl. 3 & 4, disposed between the tubular insulation layer and the surrounding protective layer), the protective layer including a second dielectric layer (i.e., 5; see below), the second dielectric layer in direct contact with the outer surface of the heater layer (i.e., in figs. 1 & 2, the second dielectric layer 5 is in direct contact with the outer surface of heat conducting sub-layer 4 of the heater layer; in fig. 3, the second dielectric layer 5 is in direct contact with the outer surface of the heating cable 3 and the outer surface of the heat conducting sub-layer 4 of the heater layer), and the heater layer is configured to provide heating to an outer surface of the protective layer to inhibit frost or ice buildup on the outer surface of the protective layer (i.e., as configured, the heater layer, while heating the second surface of the insulation layer, would also serve to heat the protective layer, including an outer surface of the protective layer, which would inhibit frost or ice buildup on the outer surface of the protective layer).
Regarding the limitation wherein the heater layer has a wattage of less than 1 watt per square inch, Luo discloses that, while the heater should provide enough heat to avoid pipeline condensation, efficiency / reduction of energy consumption is also a factor to be considered (e.g., pg. 3 of the translation). In several examples, Luo discloses that the heater may adjust the output power as needed and so may use a power less than 40 watts per meter (pg. 5; see also pg. 5). In later examples, depending on the heating required, the actual power used may be less, e.g. 4.4 W, 6.6 W or 28.6 W (see pg. 6)(Note that these appear to be linear measures, not power density per unit area).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the heater layer to have any wattage as may be require for a particular application, including a wattage less than 1 watt per square inch, as a matter of routine engineering design / optimization, in order to provide sufficient heat to avoid condensation, while also considering energy efficiency and avoiding heating of the cold fluid within the pipeline (i.e., as suggested by Luo).
Regarding the limitation wherein the protective layer includes a second dielectric layer, Luo discloses that the protective layer (5) may be provided as “a flexible material such as PU, rubber, plastic, cloth or leather” (see “specific execution examples” section). As would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art, polyurethane (PU), rubber, and plastics, are generally poor electrical conductors and as such, unless specifically formulated with conductive additives (e.g., metallic or carbon fiber fillers), such materials would be understood to be dielectric (i.e., electrically insulating). It is noted that applicant’s own specification admits that polyurethane (PU), rubber, and several common plastics (polyethylene, polyester, PTFE, FEP, PFA) are dielectric materials (see para. 23, lines 11-13).
As Luo does not explicitly disclose or require the addition of such conductive additives, the layer 5 of the protective layer, at least when provided as polyurethane [PU], plastic or rubber, as suggested by Luo, would be reasonably understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art as being a layer formed from a dielectric material (i.e., a dielectric layer).
Matsushita teaches (fig. 9; paras. 39-43) a heater layer (14) suitable for use in heating tubular / pipe systems (e.g., as in the devices of figs. 5-8), said heating layer (14) comprising a dielectric layer (incl. dielectric / insulating films 36a, 36b, which may be polyimide, FEP, PFA or PET [para. 42]) and a resistive heating element (38; e.g., nichrome, stainless steel, iron-nickel, or copper-nickel alloys in the form of a foil [para. 41]), the resistive heating element (38) embedded in the dielectric layer so as to be spaced apart from the outer surface (i.e., as shown in fig. 9, the resistive heating element 38 is embedded in the combined dielectric layer formed by films 36a and 36b and spaced apart from the outer surfaces; and otherwise may be considered particularly embedded within the film 36b as shown) to provide uniform heating (para 40: “The resistor 38 is uniformly arranged…so that the surface of the insulating film is uniformly heated…”).
Examination Note: Matsushita further explains that the two polyimide films may be bonded together either by adhesive (which may be a thermosetting polyamide or a fusion / heat-melt polyimide) or “heat sealed and directly bonded” (para. 43). When such films are bonded by polyimide adhesives or are otherwise directly heat-bonded to one another, the resistive heating element would be embedded within the resulting bonded dielectric layer, which may otherwise be considered to have an integral structure after such bonding.
Matsushita explains that such a heater layer (i.e., a layered heater) is preferred over a conventional band-type heater as it is more compact and uses less power (see paras 7, 12 & 13, etc.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal insulation device of Luo such that the heater layer comprises a dielectric layer (e.g., a layered polyimide construction) and a resistive heating element (e.g., a metal foil) embedded in the dielectric layer so as to be spaced apart from the outer surface, in view of the teachings of Matsushita, as the simple substitution of one known heater layer arrangement (e.g., the original heater layer arrangement of Luo, including a dual-core self-regulating heating band 3 and a separate sub-layer of heat conducting material 4) for another (i.e., the layered polyimide and metal foil heater layer of Matsushita) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a more compact and power-efficient heating arrangement, as suggested by Matsushita).
Cohen teaches (e.g., fig. 1) a facing / covering arrangement for protecting an underlying insulation layer, e.g., for a pipe or duct (i.e., “providing a vapor barrier and a weather seal” for such pipe insulation; para. 1) may comprise an outermost vapor barrier layer (12), which may be a metal foil or a metalized polymer foil (para. 34), disposed in direct contact with an underlying protective polymer layer (14).
Cohen explains that the foil layer provides a vapor seal, weather resistance, and a “desirable exterior appearance”, while the polymer layer provides “puncture and tear resistance” (col. 31, lines 6-8), and the combination of materials provides “the desired fire resistance and resistance to flame spread” (col. 31, lines 9-11).
Cohen teaches that the polymer layer (14) may be polyester film, or another polymer film “such as… polyethylene, polyurethane, … or polytetrafluoroethylene” (para. 35). As best understood, such polymer film layers may reasonably be seen as dielectric layers. It is noted that many of the materials listed, including polyester, polyethylene, polyurethane and PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene), are identified in applicant’s own specification as being dielectric materials (e.g., see para. 23, lines 10-14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal insulation device of Luo such that the protective layer includes a vapor barrier layer (i.e., a metal foil or metallized polymer foil vapor barrier layer) in direct contact with the second dielectric layer (i.e., the layer of polyurethane, plastic or rubber 5 of Luo; corresponding to the polymer layer of Cohen), wherein the vapor barrier layer inhibits atmospheric moisture diffusing into the insulation layer, in view of the teachings of Cohen, as the use of a known technique (i.e., providing a metallic or metallized foil vapor barrier as an outermost layer disposed directly on and around an outer polymer protective layer of an insulated pipe device, as in Cohen) to improve a similar device (the thermal insulation device of Luo, having an inner pipe insulation layer and a surrounding outer polymer protective layer) in the same way (e.g., providing for an improved vapor seal and weather resistance between the surrounding environment and the outer side of the insulation layer, and otherwise providing for a ”desirable exterior appearance”, as suggested by Cohen).
As a result, all of the limitations of claim 20 are met, or are otherwise rendered obvious.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Matsushita and Cohen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koravos et al. (US 2011/0197987 A1; hereafter Koravos).
Regarding claim 6, Luo discloses that the insulation layer may be provided as a foam (i.e., “the foaming heat-insulating material”) and further discloses that the insulation layer may be formed of, e.g., “polystyrene resin”, “polyethylene resin”, among others (see claim 6).
As best understood then, Luo may reasonably be seen to discloses the additional limitation wherein the insulation layer includes a material selected from a group consisting of polyisocyanurate, polyurethane, expanded polystyrene, silicone foam, polyethylene foam, aerogels, and combinations thereof (e.g., Luo reasonably disclosing at least expanded polystyrene and polyethylene foam).
However, to promote compact prosecution and to facilitate clarity for the rejection of certain dependent claims, the following alternative teaching is provided.
Koravos teaches (throughout; e.g., see abstract) the use of aerogels (para. 83, 84, 87, 88) as an insulating layer for a thermal pipe insulation device (as shown in the figures). In some embodiments, these may be hydrophobic aerogels (e.g., see para. 90).
Koravos also notes that polyurethane foams are commonly known in the art (para. 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal insulation device of Luo such that the insulation layer includes material a selected from a group consisting of polyisocyanurate, polyurethane, expanded polystyrene, silicone foam, polyethylene foam, aerogels, and combinations thereof (i.e., aerogels or polyurethane foams) in view of the teachings of Koravos, especially considering that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7, with respect to the limitation wherein the insulation layer includes a monolith body, Koravos further teaches that the aerogels used for pipe insulation layers may be monolithic (see abstract: “particulate, composite or monolithic insulating aerogel material”; see also paras. 298 & 307).
Regarding claim 8, with respect to the limitation wherein the insulation layer comprises a composite structure, Koravos further teaches that the aerogels used for pipe insulation layers may be a composite (see abstract: “particulate, composite or monolithic insulating aerogel material”; see also paras. 97, 99, 100, & 307; published claim 12).
Regarding claim 9, Koravos further teaches the additional limitation wherein the insulation layer includes an aerogel material as a primary constituent (e.g., when the aerogel is a monolithic material, as set forth for claim 7 above).
While Koravos discloses additional optional additives, fillers, modifying agents, etc. (e.g., para. 94), as understood, aerogel would still reasonably be the “primary constituent” of such a material. Additionally, Koravos teaches that, in “preferred examples”, the insulating material “can consist essentially of, or even consist of, porous particles (e.g., about 100%)” (para 104, lines 5-8) and that “[d]esirably the porous particles are aerogel particles” (para. 105, line 7).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Matsushita and Cohen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayakawa et al. (US 2016/0043297 A1; cited in applicant’s IDS filed 03/22/2023; hereafter Hayakawa).
Regarding claims 16-18, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art, the heater layers disclosed by Luo and Matsushita would require a source of electrical power in order to generate heat.
However, Luo does not explicitly disclose a power generating device for supplying an induced voltage to the heater layer (claim 16); wherein the power generating device includes a first conductive portion and a second conductive portion that are joined to form a junction such that a temperature difference between the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion causes the induced voltage to be generated (claim 17); or wherein the first and second conductive portions are disposed proximate external components having different temperatures such that the external components cause the temperature difference (claim 18).
Hayakawa teaches (various embodiments in figs. 1-10 & 12) a power generating device (i.e., “a thermoelectric conversion module”) for supplying an induced voltage (e.g., see abstract: the unit is capable of generating power; para 49, lines 30-32: “electricity generated by a Seebeck effect in a Heusler alloy portion is extracted from the electrodes as electric power (voltage or current)”),
wherein the power generating device includes a first conductive portion (e.g., “upper” electrode 111 and/or 113; paired with hot pipe 201) and a second conductive portion (e.g., “lower” electrode 112 and/or 114; paired with cold side pipe 202) that are joined to form a junction (via p-type material portions 101/103 and n-type material portions 102/104) such that a temperature difference between the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion (i.e., corresponding to a temperature difference between the hot pipe 201 and cold pipe 202) causes the induced voltage to be generated (i.e., via the Seebeck effect),
wherein the first and second conductive portions (i.e., “upper” electrodes 111/113 and “lower” electrodes 112/114, respectively) are disposed proximate external components having different temperatures (e.g., hot pipe 201 & cold pipe 202, respectively; see fig. 4 & 5) such that the external components cause the temperature difference (i.e., corresponding to the temperature difference between the hot and cold pipes; see, e.g., abstract, paras. 2, 8-18, 32-42, 49, etc.).
Hayakawa suggests that this power generating device can generate electricity from, e.g., unused industrial waste heat, etc. (para. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal insulation device of Luo (as otherwise modified above) to include a power generating device for supplying an induced voltage to the heater layer (claim 16), wherein the power generating device includes a first conductive portion and a second conductive portion (i.e. hot and cold side electrodes) that are joined to form a junction (i.e., having p- and n-type junction portions) such that a temperature difference between the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion causes the induced voltage to be generated (i.e., via the Seebeck effect)(claim 17), wherein the first and second conductive portions are disposed proximate external components having different temperatures (i.e., proximate a heat source and a cooling source, respectively) such that the external components cause the temperature difference (claim 18), in view of the teachings of Hayakawa, as a combination of known prior art elements (i.e., the thermal insulation device of Luo, with the power generating device of Hayakawa) according to known methods (i.e., any appropriate known methods of connecting a power generating device to a power consuming device) to yield predictable results (e.g., powering the heated thermal insulation device using otherwise unused industrial waste heat, etc.), especially considering that, in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As a result, the limitations of claims 16-18 are met, or are otherwise rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Luo fails to teach, suggest, or disclose the heater layer configured to provide heating to an outer surface of a protective layer, this argument is not found to be persuasive. With the structure disclosed by Luo, heat from the heater would, at least by conduction, serve to heat the protective layer, including the outer surface of the protective layer, at least to some extent, if the outer surface were to be at a lower temperature than the heater. Furthermore, Luo explicitly discloses that when the temperature of fluid in the pipeline is, e.g., -20 C, and a temperature measured at the heater surface is 40.5 C, an outer surface of the heat-conducting material (T1) may be 25.6 C (see fig. 2; para. 2 of pg. 6 of the translation, etc.). As such, the heat conducting material outward of the heater is clearly heated and, by conduction, the rest of the protective layer would also be heated, to some extent.
Applicant’s argument that Matsushita teaches away from the heater layer is not found to be persuasive. Matsushita’s comments regarding the outer shell member not being “heated” so as to avoid problems if bare hands contact the surface is in context of an application wherein the heater is employed to maintain a semiconductor discharge pipe at 100 to 300 degrees. By contrast, when used in the application of Luo, to prevent condensation, the target temperature is substantially lower. Moreover, Matsushita was not relied upon for incorporation of the entire heating apparatus, but rather for the details taught regarding the polyamide layered heater, which may be thinner and provide a more uniform heating than a band-type heater. As set forth in MPEP § 2123(I), "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding the newly recited limitation wherein the wattage is less than 1 watt per square foot, as explained in the amended grounds of rejection in this action, Luo discloses that, while the heater should provide enough heat to avoid pipeline condensation, efficiency / reduction of energy consumption is also a factor to be considered (e.g., pg. 3 of the translation). In several examples, Luo discloses that the heater may adjust the output power as needed and so may use a power less than 40 watts per meter (pg. 5; see also pg. 5). In later examples, depending on the heating required, the actual power used may be less, e.g. 4.4 W, 6.6 W or 28.6 W (see pg. 6)(Note that these appear to be linear measures, not power density per unit area).
As such, it would have been obvious to configure the heater layer to have any wattage as may be required for a particular application, including a wattage less than 1 watt per square inch, as a matter of routine engineering design / optimization, in order to provide sufficient heat to avoid condensation, while also considering energy efficiency and avoiding heating of the cold fluid within the pipeline (i.e., as suggested by Luo).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights