DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Weilert (US 20230099933 A1) in view of O’Toole (US 6190450 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Weilert discloses a plate-shaped heat insulator, comprising
an aggregate of multiple heat insulating members (Fig. 10; 230a, 230b), wherein the plate-shaped heat insulator is intended to be disposed in a combustion chamber (Fig. 2A; 210+212), and wherein at least one heat insulating member of the multiple heat insulating members is a molded product (this is a product-by-process limitation and the insulating member 230 is substantially identical to the claimed insulating member, especially when modified by the teaching reference as discussed below; see MPEP 2113 (I, II)), EXCEPT:
each heat insulating member of the multiple heat insulating members contains inorganic fibers.
However, O’Toole teaches a plate-shaped heat insulator (baking stone) comprising an aggregate of multiple heat insulating members containing inorganic fibers (glass fiber) (abstract). O’Toole further teaches molding the insulator (col. 5, lines 30-46).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Weilert where each heat insulating member of the multiple heat insulating members contains inorganic fibers. The motivation to combine is to improve the strength of the insulator (O’Toole, col. 3, lines 63-65).
Regarding claim 4, modified Weilert discloses the plate-shaped heat insulator according to claim 1, wherein the aggregate is a sheet including the multiple heat insulating members disposed in a plane direction of the plate-shaped heat insulation (Weilert; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, modified Weilert discloses the plate-shaped heat insulator according to claim 4, wherein the two heat insulating members facing each other in the plane direction are in contact with each other without a gap (Weilert; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, modified Weilert discloses the plate-shaped heat insulator according to claim 1, wherein the inorganic fibers include at least one selected from the group consisting of biosoluble fibers, alumina fibers, rock wool, and glass fibers (O’Toole; abstract).
Regarding claim 11, modified Weilert discloses the plate-shaped heat insulator according to claim 1, except wherein the heat insulating member has a bulk density of 0.2 to 0.6 g/cm3.
However, this limitation is a matter of optimization that can be found through routine experimentation. The bulk density affects the weight and strength of the insulator. A higher bulk density increases the strength, but it also increases the weight. A lower bulk density has the opposite effect.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to further modify Weilert wherein the heat insulating member has a bulk density of 0.2 to 0.6 g/cm3, so that the insulator has the desired strength and weight.
Regarding claim 12, modified Weilert discloses the plate-shaped heat insulator according to claim 1, except wherein the heat insulating member is a plate-shaped product of papermaking.
However, this limitation is a product by process claim and, in this case, the claimed insulator plate is the same or substantially similar to the one disclosed in Weilert in view of O’Toole.
Regarding claim 20, modified Weilert discloses the plate-shaped heat insulator according to claim 1, wherein the multiple heat insulating members each have at least one surface facing a surface of another heat insulating member of the aggregate of multiple heat insulating members (Weilert, Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 21, modified Weilert discloses the plate-shaped heat insulator according to claim 1, wherein the molded product is: a molded solidified amorphous product containing the inorganic fibers (see rejection of claim 1, especially the composition disclosed in O’Toole); a molded papermaking product containing the inorganic fibers; or a molded needled product containing the inorganic fibers.
Regarding claim 22, modified Weilert discloses the plate-shaped heat insulator according to claim 1, wherein each heat insulating member of the multiple heat insulating members is a molded product (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Weilert (US 20230099933 A1) in view of O’Toole (US 6190450 B1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kajander (US 5837621 A).
Regarding claim 10, modified Weilert discloses the plate-shaped heat insulator according to claim 1, except wherein the inorganic fibers have an average fiber length of 0.05 to 3.0 mm.
However, this limitation is a matter of optimization that can be found through routine experimentation. The length of the fiber affects the strength of the insulator, and more (see col. 7, lines 16-30 of Kajander for a more detailed discussion).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to further modify Weilert wherein the inorganic fibers have an average fiber length of 0.05 to 3.0 mm, so that the insulator has the desired strength and properties.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Weilert (US 20230099933 A1) in view of O’Toole (US 6190450 B1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zheng (CN 202705215 U).
Regarding claim 19, modified Weilert discloses the plate-shaped heat insulator according to claim 1, wherein the multiple heat insulating members includes a first heat insulating member (Weilert; 230a) and a second heat insulating member (Weilert; 230b), except wherein the first heat insulating member and the second heat insulating member are bonded to each other via an adhesive.
However, Zheng teaches a refractory insulating brick and the technique of bonding two bricks together using an adhesive (abstract). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Weilert wherein the first heat insulating member and the second heat insulating member are bonded to each other via an adhesive. The motivation to combine is to prevent grease and other liquids from entering the gap between the two insulating members, and to provide improved structural rigidity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that “O'Toole also does not disclose or suggest at least one heat insulating member of such a multiple heat insulating members is a molded product.” (Remarks, pg. 12). The Examiner asserts that Weilert discloses the multiple heat insulating members and O'Toole teaches a molded insulating member, as explained in the rejection of claim 1.
The remaining arguments do not apply to any of the current rejections.
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 JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights