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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that because the scrim of Shumate is between two polymeric sheet outer layers the “the scrim layer” claimed is not bonded directly to the outer surface of the fiberglass insulation layer as required by claims 11-16.
As set forth in the rejection below, the entire structure 102 identified as a “scrim layer” includes sub element 206 (identified as a scrim). Giving the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation, a laminate that includes a layer of scrim as disclosed by Shumate (as admitted by applicant in the Arguments/Remarks filed 20 August 2025) is reasonably considered “a scrim layer”. Applicant provides no evidence in support of a position that the laminate jacket 200 can’t be considered a scrim layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. 8104519 B1 to Shumate et al. (Shumate).
With regard to claim 11, Shumate discloses an insulation assembly (Shumate, title, abstract) for use in a flexible duct (column 2, lines 64-673), the insulation assembly comprising:
a fiberglass insulation layer (104, fig. 1, column 5, lines 52-56 and 60-67) comprising an outer surface (the surface opposite inner surface 114, fig. 1); and
a scrim layer (102, fig. 1, column 6, lines 9-10 – laminate 102 includes a scrim 206 making the entire laminate a scrim layer) bonded directly to the outer surface of the fiberglass insulation layer (column 6, lines 112-114) and comprising a fiber textile yarn (206, fig. 2, column 7, lines 10-15. In the embodiment of fig. 2 as applied to the insulation layer of fig. 1 and described above), wherein the scrim layer is configured to resist flame penetration of the flexible duct when used in the flexible duct (column 7, lines 31-33, in the embodiment where an additive prevents propagation of fire. A material that prevents fire from propagating is configured to resist flame penetration).
With regard to claim 12, Shumate discloses the flexible duct of claim 11 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the scrim layer comprises a glass fiber textile yarn (column 7, lines 10-15).
With regard to claim 13, Shumate discloses the flexible duct of claim 11 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the scrim layer is configured to resist flame and weight penetration of the flexible duct when subjected to a flame penetration test according to Underwriters Laboratories (UL) test standard UL 181 (this claim limitation is considered to be a statement of the field of intended use that does not further limit the claimed structure beyond a requirement to be able to perform the claimed function of resisting flame and weight penetration. The recited UL standard describes a methodology of testing materials for compliance with building codes but the claim does not require compliance with the standard, instead merely requiring “configured to resist”. The assembly of Shumate is capable of performing the function of being “configured to resist” flame and weight penetration in that the reinforcing portion of the scrim layer provides structural reinforcement and the flame propagation resistant additive layer provides flame penetration resistance).
With regard to claim 14, Shumate discloses the flexible duct of claim 11 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the scrim layer comprises at least one of a tri-axial pattern, a rectangular pattern (shown in fig. 2 the mesh layer 206 is rectangular), or a square pattern.
With regard to claim 15, Shumate discloses the insulation assembly of claim 11 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the insulation assembly is formed by spinning molten glass into glass fibers, applying adhesive to the glass fibers to form an adhesive-coated mass of glass fibers, applying the scrim layer to the adhesive-coated mass of glass fibers, and curing adhesive-coated mass of glass fibers (this limitation is considered to be a product by process limitation as described by MPEP Section 2113 that does not further limit the claimed structure absent some evidence of a distinctive characteristic imparted to the claimed structure as a result of the claimed process. The claimed process of spinning fibers, applying adhesive to create a mass and then curing the mass is a conventional process of creating fiber based insulation).
With regard to claim 16, Shumate discloses the insulation assembly of claim 11 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the insulation assembly is formed by applying an adhesive to at least one of the scrim layer or the fiberglass insulation layer and placing the scrim layer against the fiberglass insulation layer (column 6, lines 12-14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The indicated claims remain allowable for the same reasons set forth in the office action of 30 May 2025.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 DAVID R DEAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9216. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8-4 pm CST.
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 at: Craig M Schneider (571) 272-3607 and Ken Rinehart (571) 272-4881. 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.
/DAVID R DEAL/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753