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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over an article titled “FOAMGLAS®” by Pittsburgh Corning FOAMGLAS® Insulation (submitted on 11 September 2024) (hereinafter “Corning”), and further in view of an article titled “Protective and Decorative Sealant For Insulated Metal Panels” by globepanel.com (submitted on 10 March 2025) (hereinafter “Globe”).Regarding claims 1, 5, 7, 21 and 22 Corning teaches FOAMGLAS® cellular glass insulation (cellular glass insulation system) (page 3). Corning teaches the insulation may be used in hot temperature applications where hot oil or asphalt is located within a storage tank (page 4, under the “Wide-Ranging, Service-Proven Applications” heading, and page 17), which corresponds to a cellular glass insulation system for insulating a liquid containment vessel comprising a liquid at an elevated temperature. Corning teaches the FOAMGLAS® cellular glass insulation may be used in an application where a plurality of cellular glass insulation blocks (segments) are bonded together and used (page 19, Figure left of Table 6, and page 20, under the “StrataFab® System” heading). Corning illustrates the cellular glass insulation blocks (segments) include an upper surface (exterior liquid facing surface), a lower surface (surface opposing the exterior liquid facing surface), and a plurality of side surfaces extending between the upper surface (liquid facing surface) and the lower surface (surface opposing the liquid facing surface) (page 19, Figure left of Table 6, including “Annotate Figure”, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
479
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In addition, Corning teaches the bonding together of the cellular glass insulation blocks (segments) includes the use of an adhesive/sealant, such as a silicone sealant (page 20, under the “StrataFab® System” heading and page 34, under the “Adhesives” heading). The limitations present in claim 21 recites the intended use of the claimed cellular glass insulation system. That is, “the liquid [within a liquid containment vessel being insulated by the claimed cellular glass insulation system] is water.” The scope of claim 21 does not impart any additional structure to the claimed cellular glass insulation system itself, so the structure of the cellular glass insulation system, as recited in claim 21, is considered to be met for the same reasons as claim 7. Corning does not explicitly teach the silicone sealant: is applied on at least a portion of the exterior liquid-facing surface; or entirely coats the exterior liquid-facing surface. Globe teaches the use of sealants on insulating panels helps seal, protect, waterproof, and even decorate the insulating panels (page 1, first paragraph). Globe also teaches the advantages of providing a sealant for insulating panels includes: (1) protection of the insulating panel from UV degradation; (2) quickly waterproof panels with different insulating cores, thus preventing harmful cracks and water infiltrations; (3) quickly seal the contact surface between the insulating core with an elastic film; (4) seal small holes, interstices, and cracks in the insulating core; (5) absorb dimensional variations of composite materials; (6) quickly decorate a cutting surface to harmonize the color to a desirable appearance; (7) act as a decorative finish, resistant to atmospheric agents; and (8) act as a decorative finish with very high covering properties, to apply on the insulating core (page 1, items 1-8 in the second paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the sealant coverage for the exposed surface (exterior liquid-facing surface) of the plurality of cellular glass insulation blocks (segments) which make up the FOAMGLAS® cellular glass insulation system of Corning with a sealant coating covering the entirety of the exposed surface (exterior liquid-facing surface) to seal, protect, waterproof, and even decorate the insulating panels, as taught by Globe. The combination of Corning and Globe does not explicitly teach: (1) the silicone sealant is applied at a thickness of from 0.5 mm to 5 mm; or (2) the silicone sealant is applied at a rate of about 1 kg/m2 to about 4 kg/m2. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate amount of the silicone sealant (including its thickness and areal density) using nothing more than routine experimentation to provide a sealant coating which is robust enough to achieve the desired protective properties (protection from UV degradation, waterproof, seal to prevent liquid infiltration, absorb dimensional variations, and/or provide a protective decorative finish) disclosed by Globe. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).Regarding claims 2 and 6 As previously noted: Corning teaches the FOAMGLAS® cellular glass insulation may be used in an application where a plurality of cellular glass insulation blocks (segments) are bonded together and used (page 19, Figure left of Table 6, and page 20, under the “StrataFab® System” heading); and Globe teaches the use of sealants on insulating panels helps seal, protect, waterproof, and even decorate the insulating panels (page 1, first paragraph; and page 1, items 1-8 in the second paragraph). The combination of Corning and Globe does not explicitly teach: (1) the silicone sealant is applied to more than one surface of the cellular glass insulation segments; or (2) the silicone sealant covers each surface of the cellular glass insulation segments. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to apply the sealant from the combination of Corning and Globe to more than one surface and/or each surface of the cellular glass insulation segments to: provide a bond between adjacent cellular glass insulation segments; and/or provide protective properties (as taught by Globe) to the surfaces of the cellular glass insulation segments.Regarding claims 3 and 4 In addition, Corning teaches the adhesive/sealant includes a silicone sealant selected from an acetoxy-cure silicone elastomeric solid (rubber) (page 34, under the “PC® Hi-Temp/RTV Silicone Adhesive” and “PC® RTV 450 Silicone Adhesive” sub-headings under the “Adhesives” heading).Regarding claim 23 In addition, Corning teaches the insulation is resistant to water in both liquid and vapor forms (page 4, under the “Superior Physical Attributes” heading), which corresponds to an application where the insulation is exposed to its surroundings or the exterior liquid-facing surface of the cellular glass insulation segments is in contact with liquid contained in the liquid containment vessel. Alternatively, the limitations present in claim 23 recites the intended use of the claimed cellular glass insulation system. That is, “the exterior liquid-facing surface of the cellular glass insulation segments is in contact with liquid contained in the liquid containment vessel. The scope of claim 23 does not impart any additional structure to the claimed at least one cellular glass insulation segment itself, so the structure of the at least one cellular glass insulation, as recited in claim 22 (limitations from the combination of 1, 7, 21 and 22), is considered to be met for the same reasons as claim 22 above.Regarding claim 24 In addition, the limitations present in claim 24 recites the intended use of the claimed cellular glass insulation system. That is, “at least one cellular glass insulation segment [from the claimed cellular glass insulation system] is at least partially submerged in the liquid.” The scope of claim 24 does not impart any additional structure to the claimed at least one cellular glass insulation segment itself, so the structure of the at least one cellular glass insulation, as recited in claim 23 (limitations from the combination of 1, 7, 21, 22 and 23), is considered to be met for the same reasons as claim 23 above.Regarding claims 25-29 Corning teaches FOAMGLAS® cellular glass insulation (cellular glass insulation system) (page 3). Corning teaches the insulation may be used in hot temperature applications where hot oil or asphalt is located within a storage tank (page 4, under the “Wide-Ranging, Service-Proven Applications” heading, and page 17), which corresponds to a cellular glass insulation system for insulating a water containment vessel operating at an elevated temperature. Corning teaches the FOAMGLAS® cellular glass insulation may be used in an application where a plurality of cellular glass insulation blocks (segments) are bonded together and used (page 19, Figure left of Table 6, and page 20, under the “StrataFab® System” heading). Corning illustrates the cellular glass insulation blocks (segments) include an upper surface (exposed liquid facing surface), a lower surface (surface opposing the exterior liquid facing surface), and a plurality of side surfaces extending between the upper surface (liquid facing surface) and the lower surface (surface opposing the liquid facing surface) (page 19, Figure left of Table 6, including “Annotate Figure”, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
479
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In addition, Corning teaches the bonding together of the cellular glass insulation blocks (segments) includes the use of an adhesive/sealant, such as a silicone sealant (page 20, under the “StrataFab® System” heading and page 34, under the “Adhesives” heading). Corning teaches the adhesive/sealant includes a silicone sealant selected from an acetoxy-cure silicone elastomeric solid (rubber) (page 34, under the “PC® Hi-Temp/RTV Silicone Adhesive” and “PC® RTV 450 Silicone Adhesive” sub-headings under the “Adhesives” heading). There are limitations present in claim 25 that recite the intended use of the claimed cellular glass insulation system. That is, “[the] cellular glass insulation system [is] for insulating a water containment vessel.” The scope of this limitation in the preamble of claim 25 does not impart any additional structure to the claimed cellular glass insulation system itself, so the structure of the cellular glass insulation system, as recited in claim 25, is considered to be met. Corning does not explicitly teach the silicone sealant: is applied on at least a portion of the exposed liquid-facing surface of the cellular glass insulation segments; or covers each surface of the cellular glass insulation segments. Globe teaches the use of sealants on insulating panels helps seal, protect, waterproof, and even decorate the insulating panels (page 1, first paragraph). Globe also teaches the advantages of providing a sealant for insulating panels includes: (1) protection the insulating panel from UV degradation; (2) quickly waterproof panels with different insulating cores, thus preventing harmful cracks and water infiltrations; (3) quickly seal the contact surface between the insulating core with an elastic film; (4) seal small holes, interstices, and cracks in the insulating core; (5) absorb dimensional variations of composite materials; (6) quickly decorate a cutting surface to harmonize the color to a desirable appearance; (7) act as a decorative finish, resistant to atmospheric agents; and (8) act as a decorative finish with very high covering properties, to apply on the insulating core (page 1, items 1-8 in the second paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the sealant coverage for the plurality of cellular glass insulation blocks (segments) which make up the FOAMGLAS® cellular glass insulation system of Corning with a sealant coating covering: at least a portion of the exposed liquid-facing surface of the cellular glass insulation segments; and/or each surface of the cellular glass insulation segments to seal, protect, waterproof, and even decorate the insulating panels, as taught by Globe. The combination of Corning and Globe does not explicitly teach: (1) the silicone sealant is applied at a thickness of from 0.5 mm to 5 mm; or (2) the silicone sealant is applied at a rate of about 1 kg/m2 to about 4 kg/m2. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate amount of the silicone sealant (including its thickness and areal density) using nothing more than routine experimentation to provide a sealant coating which is robust enough to achieve the desired protective properties (protection from UV degradation, waterproof, seal to prevent liquid infiltration, absorb dimensional variations, and/or provide a protective decorative finish) disclosed by Globe. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 19 February 2026, with respect to the rejections of: claims 1-7 and 21-29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); and claims 23, 24 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 19 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s argued the Office’s position that a fabrication adhesive would be selected to coat an exterior surface and protect a block from deterioration is not a fair reading of Corning and the way one would arrive at the claims is impermissible hindsight. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Corning teaches the use of silicone based adhesives/sealants (see “PC® Hi-Temp/RTV Silicone Adhesive88 Adhesive” and PC® RTV 450 Silicone Adhesive” on page 34, under the “Adhesives” heading from Corning). Therefore, Corning recognizes the use of adhesive/sealant material in bonding together of cellular glass insulation blocks (segments). Furthermore, Globe teaches the use of sealants for coating insulating panels to provide the list of benefits provided in the current rejection of record. Therefore, the examiner has taken the reasonable position that a person having ordinary skill in the art would apply the silicone based adhesives/sealants taught by Corning in a manner disclosed by Globe to arrive at the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The applicant argued no technical information is provided on the chemical identity of the Globe sealant so it is unclear whether it would actually overlap with the instant sealant. The examiner respectfully submits this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection of record. The examiner does not rely on the chemical identity of Globe’s sealant; but rather, relies on Globe to show benefits for why a person having ordinary skill would incorporate the adhesive/sealant of Corning onto Corning’s own panels. It is the position of the examiner that the chemical identity of the adhesive/sealant from Corning overlaps with the instantly claimed sealant.
The applicant argued the benefits (disclosed by Globe) touted by the Office are either redundant or not relevant to cellular glass insulation because: (1) the polyurethane material disclosed by Globe, which is referenced in providing UV degradation protection is not disclosed by Corning; (2) the instant cellular glass insulation is not a composite material and thus, the benefit of absorbing dimensional variations would not apply; (3) the Globe sealant is described as waterproofing panels, preventing harmful cracks and water infiltrations, including the disclosure of sealing small holes, interstices, and cracks in the insulating core, which would not be applicable to Corning, which is taught as being a non-porous, closed-cell material that is already water resistant; and (4) the improvement to the aesthetics is not relevant to the instant application. Regarding (1), UV degradation is a common issue associated with a variety of materials, not just polyurethane. The applicant’s argument fails to establish nonobviousness of the claims because it is readily apparent that materials, other than polyurethane, would suffer from more severe UV degradation without a protective coating. Regarding (2), the presence of irregularities on a surface of a material is not unique to composite materials. Regarding (3), the fact that Corning teaches their panel is water resistant is evidence that Corning’s panel fails to prevent any water infiltration. Therefore, the use of a sealant providing a waterproofing feature to Corning’s panel would be desirable because waterproofing, by definition, prevents any water infiltration, which is a higher degree of protection when compared to a water resistant level of protection. Regarding (4), this argument is fails to establish nonobviousness of the claims. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted) ("[T]he motivation in the prior art to combine the references does not have to be identical to that of the applicant to establish obviousness.").
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 BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783