DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The present application is continuation of application 17/105,727, now abandoned.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claims 2, 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
3. Claims 2, 4, 6 refer to “expandable graphite particles” (claim 2), “providing a composition” (claims 2, 4), “plurality of graphite particles” (claim 6), wherein said terms are used for the second time, but do not recite prepositions “the” or “said” in front of those; therefore, it is not clear if said terms are the same as or different from those previously used.
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.
4. Claims 1-3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al (US 2007/0282027) in view of Eilbracht et al (US 2013/0068990), as evidenced by Expandable Graphite SYZR Series flyer.
In certain circumstances, references cited to show a universal fact need not be available as prior art before applicant’s filing date. In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266, 135 USPQ 442 (CCPA 1962). Such facts include the characteristics and properties of a material or a scientific truism. See MPEP § 2124.
5. Fujimoto et al discloses a method for forming a molded article comprising:
1) forming a resin composition A) comprising:
a) copolymers of a vinyl chloride with methyl methacrylate, acrylonitrile and/or
vinylidene chloride ([0020]);
b) an inorganic filler including clays ([0011], [0023]) and
c) thermally expandable graphite ([0011]) and
2) extrusion molding said composition to form the molded article, causing thermal expansion upon exposure to high temperatures ([0012], [0009], [0061]),
wherein Fujimoto et al explicitly teaches that the thermally expandable graphite of the composition acts as a foaming component ([0026]).
The composition A) further comprises acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymers, methyl methacrylate-butadiene-styrene copolymers and acrylic polymers ([0059], as to instant claim 3).
6. The exemplified molded article is formed by extrusion at 140⁰C ([0078]), followed by further heating it to the temperature of 600⁰C for complete expansion ([0082]).
The exemplified expandable graphite is SYZR 1002 ([0074]), which, as evidenced by Expandable Graphite SYZR Series flyer, has expansion temperature of 180+10⁰C, i.e 170-190⁰C (see the flyer). The Expandable Graphite SYZR Series flyer further shows a variety of the commercial expandable graphite having expansion temperature of as low as 150C+10⁰C, i.e. 140-160⁰C (see the flyer).
7. It is further noted that instant specification does not recite the type of expandable graphite used, i.e. does not specify the expansion temperature of the expandable graphite used in the present invention.
8. Thus, the method of Fujimoto et al is related to a method for forming expanded molded articles, and the expanded molded articles produced by said method (as to instant claims 1, 6), the articles being based on a polymer composition comprising a resin component and thermally expandable graphite, wherein said thermally expandable graphite is used as the foaming agent, and wherein the molded product is formed by heating the composition during extrusion molding, followed by further heating for complete expanding.
9. It is noted that instant specification recites ([0021] of instant specification)::
…The method further comprises combining the polymer matrix and the graphite particle 12 to form the vacuum insulation material. The method further comprises exposing the vacuum insulation material to a second temperature greater than the first temperature. ….The step of exposing the vacuum insulation material to the second temperature may comprise the step of extruding the vacuum insulation material at the second temperature greater than the first temperature to form the void 14 within the graphite particle 12. It is to be appreciated that as the graphite particles 12 expand due to exposure to the second temperature, the resulting voids 14 in the exterior of the graphite particles 12 remain evacuated, thereby forming a vacuum therein.
Instant specification further recites ([0018] of instant specification):
In the embodiment of Figure 2, the void 14 is defined within the graphite particles resulting from expansion of the graphite particle. As used herein, a "void" means a cell or open region in the polymer matrix or in the particle that is formed by expansion of a fluid and/or by expansion of a particle.
Thus, instant specification recites that the “vacuum” or “evacuated voids” in the insulation material are formed during extruding and heating the composition comprising the polymer matrix and the expandable graphite.
10. Since the method of Fujimoto et al comprises substantially the same steps as those claimed in instant invention, including forming the composition of the resin matrix and the expandable graphite, followed by extrusion molding and heating said composition to form the molded article, wherein the expandable graphite is explicitly cited as acting as a foaming agent, therefore, the produced extrusion molded article of Fujimoto et al will intrinsically and necessarily have, or would be reasonably expected to have, at least partially, expanded graphite having evacuated voids, i.e. “vacuum” as well (as to instant claims 1, 6). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
11. It would have been further obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the resin composition A) in the step 1) by thoroughly mixing the components a)-c) to ensure formation of a uniform dispersion of said components as well (as to instant claims 2, 10).
12. As to instant claims 3, 7, given the resin matrix in the resin composition A) is cited to comprise acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer, methyl methacrylate-butadiene-styrene copolymer (i.e. a polymer including methyl methacrylate units, corresponding to polymethyl methacrylate), a copolymer of vinyl chloride with vinylidene chloride (i.e. a polymer including vinylidene chloride units, corresponding to polyvinylidene chloride), a copolymer of vinyl chloride with acrylonitrile (i.e. a polymer comprising acrylonitrile units, corresponding to polyacrylonitrile) and acrylic polymers ([0020], [0059]), it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use said polymers either alone, or a combination thereof, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
13. Fujimoto et al does not explicitly recite the produced extrusion molded article comprising graphite particles with evacuated voids as being a vacuum insulating panel.
14. Eilbracht et al discloses a composite material comprising a polymer matrix mixed with shapes having at least one cavity, used as a vacuum insulation panel ([0006]-[0007]), wherein said polymer matrix is specified as being polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) ([0023]).
15. Since the composite materials based on polymer matrix, including PMMA, and shapes having at least one cavity are taught in the art as being used for making vacuum insulation panels, as taught by Eilbracht et al, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Eilbracht et al and Fujimoto et al, and to use, or obvious to try to use the method for making extrusion molded article having evacuated voids produced by expanding of the expandable graphite of Fujimoto et al for making insulation panel comprising evacuated voids, i.e. “vacuum insulation board”, and further use, or obvious to try to use, at least partially, PMMA as one of the polymers for making said panels as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.
16. Claims 1-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al (US 2007/0282027) in view of Eilbracht et al (US 2013/0068990), in further view of Shimamoto et al (US 2017/0253716) and Peng (US 2014/0072808), as evidenced by Expandable Graphite SYZR Series flyer.
In certain circumstances, references cited to show a universal fact need not be available as prior art before applicant’s filing date. In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266, 135 USPQ 442 (CCPA 1962). Such facts include the characteristics and properties of a material or a scientific truism. See MPEP § 2124.
17. The discussion with respect to Fujimoto et al (US 2007/0282027) in view of Eilbracht et al (US 2013/0068990) set forth in paragraphs 4-15 above, is incorporated here by reference.
18. Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al do not explicitly teach the inorganic filler clay being nano-clay, specifically bentonite, and do not teach the extrusion temperature used in the method for forming extrusion molded articles..
19. However,
1) Shimamoto et al discloses a method for making a long molded product comprising:
i) forming a resin composition, followed by
ii) melt extruding the resin composition at 130-170⁰C using an extruder to form said molded article ([0079]),
Wherein the resin composition comprises a resin component, a thermally expandable graphite and an inorganic filler (Abstract); and
wherein the expansion starting temperature of the expandable graphite is less than 200⁰C ([0015]) and wherein the inorganic filler comprises clay and bentonite ([0060]).
Thus, Shimamoto et al teaches the extrusion for making molded articles taking place at a temperature of 130-170⁰C, which extrusion temperature includes the value of about 160⁰C cited in instant specification as being “the second temperature” of extrusion that forms the evacuated voids, forming vacuum in the board of instant invention ([0021] of instant specification).
2) Though Shimamoto et al does not explicitly recite the clay and bentonite being as nanoclay,
Peng teaches polymer compositions for forming films, i.e. exutusion molded articles, comprising nanoparticle fillers, specifically nanoclay/bentonite, wherein inclusion of such nanoparticles significantly reduces oxygen permeability of the polymer composite films ([0003], [0027]), i.e. said films are acting, at least partially, as insulating films.
20. Since Shimamoto et al and Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al are related to methods for forming composite molded articles by extrusion of compositions comprising a mixture of polymer and thermally expandable graphite, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein i) Shimamoto et al discloses such compositions being extruded at a temperature of as high as 170⁰C, and iii) Peng teaches polymer compositions for forming films comprising nanoparticle fillers, specifically nanoclay/bentonite, wherein inclusion of such nanoparticles significantly reduces oxygen permeability of the polymer composite films ([0003], [0027]), i.e. said films are acting, at least partially, as insulating films, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Shimamoto et al, Peng and Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al, and to conduct, or obvious to try to conduct the step of extrusion of the composition of Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al at a temperature of as high as 170⁰C, since extrusion of the polymeric composition comprising said expandable graphite at such temperatures is taught in the art, as shown by Shimamoto et al, and further include, or obvious to try to include nanoclay/bentonite into the composition for making the vacuum insulation panel/molded article of Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al, so to reduce oxygen permeability of said insulation panel/molded article of Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al, as taught by Peng as well, and since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability.
Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
21. Since i) the composition of Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al, Shimamoto et al and Peng is extruded at a temperature of as high as 170⁰C;
ii) instant specification recites the “the second temperature” of extrusion that forms the evacuated voids, forming vacuum in the board of instant invention being about 160⁰C or about 180⁰C ([0021] of instant specification);
iii) Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al exemplifies expandable graphite is SYZR 1002 ([0074]), which, as evidenced by Expandable Graphite SYZR Series flyer, has expansion temperature of 180+10⁰C, i.e. 170-190⁰C (see the flyer);
therefore, extrusion of the composition of Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al, Shimamoto et al and Peng comprising the exemplified commercial product SYZR 1002 having expansion temperature of 170-190⁰C, at a temperature of about 170⁰C will intrinsically and necessarily lead to, at least partial, expansion of the expandable graphite and at least partial formation of the evacuated voids as well. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
22. Further, in view of the teachings of Shimamoto et al that the thermally expandable graphite should have expansion starting temperature of less than 200⁰C ([0015]), and as shown by Expandable Graphite SYZR Series flyer, the various types of commercial expandable graphite are having expansion temperature of 170⁰C+10⁰C (160-180⁰C) or as low as 150⁰C+10⁰C, i.e. 140-160⁰C (see the flyer), therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use the commercial expandable graphite having expansion temperature of 170⁰C+10⁰C or as low as 150C+10⁰C as well, depending on the specific desired extrusion temperature and desired level of porosity of the produced article, and since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
23. Claims 1-3, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al (US 2007/0282027) in view of Eilbracht et al (US 2013/0068990), in further view of Kani et al (JP 2004-331823), as evidenced by Expandable Graphite SYZR Series flyer.
In certain circumstances, references cited to show a universal fact need not be available as prior art before applicant’s filing date. In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266, 135 USPQ 442 (CCPA 1962). Such facts include the characteristics and properties of a material or a scientific truism. See MPEP § 2124.
24. The discussion with respect to Fujimoto et al (US 2007/0282027) in view of Eilbracht et al (US 2013/0068990) set forth in paragraphs 4-15 above, is incorporated here by reference.
25. Though Fujimoto et al discloses the resin matrix in the resin composition A) comprising acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer, methyl methacrylate-butadiene-styrene copolymer (i.e. a polymer including methyl methacrylate units, corresponding to polymethyl methacrylate), a copolymer of vinyl chloride with vinylidene chloride (i.e. a polymer including vinylidene chloride units, corresponding to polyvinylidene chloride), a copolymer of vinyl chloride with acrylonitrile (i.e. a polymer comprising acrylonitrile units, corresponding to polyacrylonitrile) and acrylic polymers ([0020], [0059]), Fujimoto et al does not teach the resin matrix further including ethylene-vinyl alcohol.
26. However, Kani et al discloses heat insulating material comprising saponified ethylene-vinyl acetate, i.e. ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer, foam, wherein said foam was produced by extrusion foaming process and formed into a sheet, wherein said sheet has a favorable insulation property (Equivalent Abstract).
Thus, Kani et al explicitly teaches the use of ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer foam providing favorable thermal insulating property to extrusion molded articles.
27. Since not only acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer, methyl methacrylate-butadiene-styrene copolymer (i.e. a polymer including methyl methacrylate units, corresponding to polymethyl methacrylate of instant claims 3 and 7), a copolymer of vinyl chloride with vinylidene chloride (i.e. a polymer including vinylidene chloride units, corresponding to polyvinylidene chloride of instant claims 3 and 7), a copolymer of vinyl chloride with acrylonitrile (i.e. a polymer comprising acrylonitrile units, corresponding to polyacrylonitrile of instant claims 3 and 7) of Fujimoto et al are used for forming expanded products, such used as vacuum insulation panels, as taught by Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al, but further ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer foam is also taught in the art providing favorable insulation property, as shown by Kani et al, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kani et al and Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al, and to include at least partially ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer of Kani et al as the resin matrix component a) in the method of Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al, since such polymer is taught in the art as providing favorable thermal insulation property and it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Further, based on the combined teachings of Kani et al and Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use all of ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer, methyl methacrylate-butadiene-styrene copolymer (i.e. a polymer including methyl methacrylate units, corresponding to polymethyl methacrylate), a copolymer of vinyl chloride with vinylidene chloride (i.e. a polymer including vinylidene chloride units, corresponding to polyvinylidene chloride), a copolymer of vinyl chloride with acrylonitrile (i.e. a polymer comprising acrylonitrile units, corresponding to polyacrylonitrile) of Fujimoto et al in combination as the resin matrix component a) in the method of Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability (as to instant claim 7). Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
28. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al (US 2007/0282027) in view of Eilbracht et al (US 2013/0068990), Shimamoto et al (US 2017/0253716) and Peng (US 2014/0072808), in further view of Kani et al (JP 2004-331823), as evidenced by Expandable Graphite SYZR Series flyer.
In certain circumstances, references cited to show a universal fact need not be available as prior art before applicant’s filing date. In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266, 135 USPQ 442 (CCPA 1962). Such facts include the characteristics and properties of a material or a scientific truism. See MPEP § 2124.
29. The discussion with respect to Fujimoto et al (US 2007/0282027) in view of Eilbracht et al (US 2013/0068990), Shimamoto et al (US 2017/0253716) and Peng (US 2014/0072808), set forth in paragraphs 16-22 above, is incorporated here by reference.
30. Though Fujimoto et al discloses the resin matrix in the resin composition A) comprising acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer, methyl methacrylate-butadiene-styrene copolymer (i.e. a polymer including methyl methacrylate units, corresponding to polymethyl methacrylate), a copolymer of vinyl chloride with vinylidene chloride (i.e. a polymer including vinylidene chloride units, corresponding to polyvinylidene chloride), a copolymer of vinyl chloride with acrylonitrile (i.e. a polymer comprising acrylonitrile units, corresponding to polyacrylonitrile) and acrylic polymers ([0020], [0059]), Fujimoto et al does not teach the resin matrix including ethylene-vinyl alcohol.
31. However, Kani et al discloses heat insulating material comprising saponified ethylene-vinyl acetate, i.e. ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer, foam, wherein said foam was produced by extrusion foaming process and formed into a sheet, wherein said sheet has a favorable insulation property (Equivalent Abstract).
Thus, Kani et al explicitly teaches the use of ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer foam providing favorable thermal insulating property to extrusion molded articles.
32. Since not only acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer, methyl methacrylate-butadiene-styrene copolymer (i.e. a polymer including methyl methacrylate units, corresponding to polymethyl methacrylate of instant claims 3 and 7), a copolymer of vinyl chloride with vinylidene chloride (i.e. a polymer including vinylidene chloride units, corresponding to polyvinylidene chloride of instant claims 3 and 7), a copolymer of vinyl chloride with acrylonitrile (i.e. a polymer comprising acrylonitrile units, corresponding to polyacrylonitrile of instant claims 3 and 7) of Fujimoto et al are used for forming expanded products, such used as vacuum insulation panels, as taught by Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al, but further ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer foam is also taught in the art providing favorable insulation property, as shown by Kani et al, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kani et al and Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al, Shimamoto et al and Peng and to include at least partially ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer of Kani et al as the resin matrix component a) in the method of Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al, Shimamoto et al and Peng, since such polymer is taught in the art as providing favorable thermal insulation property and it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability.
Further, based on the combined teachings of Kani et al and Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al, Shimamoto et al and Peng, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use all of the ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer, methyl methacrylate-butadiene-styrene copolymer (i.e. a polymer including methyl methacrylate units, corresponding to polymethyl methacrylate), a copolymer of vinyl chloride with vinylidene chloride (i.e. a polymer including vinylidene chloride units, corresponding to polyvinylidene chloride), a copolymer of vinyl chloride with acrylonitrile (i.e. a polymer comprising acrylonitrile units, corresponding to polyacrylonitrile) of Fujimoto et al in combination as the resin matrix component a) in the method of Fujimoto et al in view of Eilbracht et al, Shimamoto et al and Peng since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability (as to instant claim 7). Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRINA KRYLOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-7349. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/IRINA KRYLOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764