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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on November 24, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are not independent and distinct. This is not found persuasive because the inventions are independent or distinct for the reasons given in the previous office action and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: (a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;(b) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3 and 4 recite “Rockwood”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 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. Claims 1-9 recite “Rockwool”’ this renders the claim indefinite because use of a trade name in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982).
Claim 2 is 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. Claim 2 recites “low weight and low thermal conductivity”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes “low weight” and “low thermal conductivity”.
Claims 8-9 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. Claim 8 recites “with an adhesive compound comprising a mixture of expanded vermiculite and water”; this renders the claim indefinite as claim 1 already requires vermiculite and water in the composition, it is unclear if Applicant is referring to the same vermiculite and water. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tong et al (CN112250336).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, Tong et al teaches a thermal insulation material comprising waste rock wool (which satisfies claimed granulated rockwool unbonded mineral fiber product), aluminum oxide and expanded vermiculite (which satisfies claimed hydrous phyllosilicate mineral having low weight and low thermal conductivity) mixed with water, polyvinyl alcohol and sodium silicate (Tong et al inherently teaches a liquid vermiculite as the vermiculite and granulated rock wool are mixed in water) (Abstract, Examples). Tong et al teaches the rock wool fiber, alumina and expanded vermiculite are def into a mixer and mixed evenly (which satisfies claimed homogenous product that is nonflammable, heat resistant and good sealing and adhesion properties) (Paragraph 12). Tong et al further teaches placing into a mold (Examples).
Tong et al inherently teaches that is nonflammable, heat resistant and good sealing and adhesion properties as Tong et al teaches an insulation material comprising the same components as the instant invention. Furthermore, the components in the insulation material are known in the art to provide the non-flammability, heat resistance and good sealing and adhesion.
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.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al (CN112250336) as applied to claims 1-2, 5 above.
Regarding claims 3-4, Tong et al teaches 100-150 parts waste rock wool, 3-8 parts alumina and 5-20 parts vermiculite and the adhesive is a mixture of 30-60wt% of polyvinyl alcohol aqueous solution and 10-30wt% sodium silicate aqueous solution at 1:1 ratio (Paragraphs 8, 19). Tong et al fails to specifically disclose a weight ratio of liquid vermiculite to granulated rockwool and weight ratio of vermiculite to water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the weight ratio of liquid vermiculite to granulated rock wool and weight ratio of vermiculite to water in Tong et al as Tong et al teaches 100-150 parts waste rock wool, 3-8 parts alumina and 5-20 parts vermiculite and the adhesive is a mixture of 30-60wt% of polyvinyl alcohol aqueous solution and 10-30wt% sodium silicate aqueous solution at 1:1 ratio, which overlaps the claimed range of vermiculite to rock wool. With regard to the amount of water to provide the liquid vermiculite, it would only be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized/adjusted the amount of water needed for forming the thermal insulation material as once the thermal insulation material is formed into a layer, the thermal insulation material is dried.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (CN112430056).
Regarding claims 1-9, Xu et al teaches a thermal insulation coating and layer, the coating comprising 5-30% of inorganic fiber, 0.5-5% of organic fiber, 10-30% of low thermal conductivity filler, 2-20wt% of fire resistant filler, 15-35% of binding agent and 20-40wt% water; the inorganic fibers can be rock wool fibers (which satisfies claimed unbonded mineral fiber product) and the low thermal conductivity filler can be expanded vermiculite powder (which satisfies claimed low weight hydrous phyllosilicate mineral and liquid vermiculite as the vermiculite and granulated rock wool are mixed in water) (Abstract). Xu et al further teaches the performance of the coating in high temperature environments is improved and free of cracking (Abstract). Xu et al teaches the components are evenly mixed in proportion to obtain the thermal insulation coating (which satisfies claimed homogenous compound that is moldable, nonflammable, heat resistance and good sealing and adhesion) (Paragraph 41). Xu et al further teaches the thermal conductivity is less than or equal to 0.165 W/mK (which overlaps the claimed range) (Paragraph 29). Xu et al further teaches the inorganic filler is one or more of rock wool fiber, aluminum silicate fiber and calcium magnesium silicate fiber (which satisfices claimed fiber glass material) (Paragraph 8). Xu et al further teaches cellulose (which satisfies claimed adhesive) (Paragraph 22). Xu et al fails to specifically disclose a preferred embodiment of a thermal insulation coating/layer comprising liquid vermiculite and granulated rock wool, a weight ratio of liquid vermiculite to granulated rockwool and weight ratio of vermiculite to water and fiber glass material is permeated with an adhesive comprising expanded vermiculite and water.
With regard to a thermal insulation coating/layer comprising liquid vermiculite and granulated rock wool, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a thermal insulation coating/layer comprising liquid vermiculite and granulated rock wool in order to form the thermal insulation coating or layer that has increased performance in high temperature environments wherein all of the components are mixed with water.
With regard to a weight ratio of liquid vermiculite to granulated rockwool and weight ratio of vermiculite to water, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the weight ratios as instantly claimed as Xu et al teaches overlapping values of the claimed components. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to fiber glass material is permeated with an adhesive comprising expanded vermiculite and water, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have expected the fiber glass material is permeated with an adhesive comprising expanded vermiculite because of the components of Xu et al are mixed together, hence, the glass material would be permeated with the adhesive material and vermiculite and water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 January 9, 2026