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
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 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Common et al. (WO 2016/171558) in view of Shimano et al. (JP 2001/064876). It is noted when using Shimano et al., the disclosures of the reference are based on a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
Regarding claim 1, Common et al. disclose applying a polymethylsilsesquioxane aerogel onto a porous substrate (page 4, lines 14-15) to form an insulation material with excellent thermal insulation (Abstract, page 5, lines 5-6), i.e. thermal insulator. The porous substrate includes fabric (page 4, lines 11-12). Given that Common et al. disclose polymethylsilsesquioxane aerogel identical to that claimed, it would necessarily inherently have water repellency and function as a thermal insulation material.
Common et al. does not disclose a polymer sorbent as claimed.
Shimano et al. disclose a fabric having excellent heat retention properties, i.e. thermal insulator, where water-absorbent resin particles, i.e. polymer sorbent, are added to the fabric (see paragraphs 0009 and 0011). The water-absorbent resin particles have particle size of 20 microns or less with finer particles being preferred (see paragraph 0016), i.e. the water-absorbent resin particles are granular. The water-absorbent resin particles are obtained by crosslinking sodium polyacrylate and have moisture-releasing properties (see paragraph 0011). Given that the water-absorbent resin particles release moisture or water, they necessarily regenerate. It is disclosed that the water-absorbent resin particles are fixed to the fabric with a silicone resin (see paragraph 0020). The water-absorbent resin particles improve heat-retention while maintaining good condensation prevention properties (see paragraphs 0008 and 0011).
In light of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the water-absorbent resin particles, i.e. polymer sorbent, with the polymethylsilsesquioxane aerogel on the porous substrate of Common et al. in order to produce a thermal insulator that has improved heat-retention while maintaining good condensation prevention properties.
Regarding claim 5, Common et al. in view of Shimano et al. do not disclose volume ratio of the water-absorbent resin particles, i.e. polymer sorbent, to the thermal insulator as presently claimed.
However, Shimano et al. disclose that the amount of the water-absorbent resin affects the condensation prevention properties was well as the swelling of the fabric (see paragraphs 0018- 0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use amount of water-absorbent resin particles, i.e. polymer sorbent, including that presently claimed, in Common et al. in view of Shimano et al. in order to produce a thermal insulator with sufficient condensation prevention properties that does not swell the fabric resulting in a slimy texture, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Common et al. (WO 2016/171558) in view of Shimano et al. (JP 2001/064876) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of the evidence given by Kuroda (JP2008/168259). It is noted when using Kuroda, the disclosures of the reference are based on a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
Regarding claim 3, while Common et al. in view of Shimano et al. disclose thermal insulator comprising water-absorbent resin particles, i.e. polymer sorbent, that is crosslinked polyacrylate identical to that used in the present invention, there is no explicit disclosure of the regeneration temperature of the crosslinked polyacrylate.
However, as evidenced by Kuroda, crosslinked polyacrylate desorbs water at 40-80 C (see paragraph 0005), i.e. crosslinked polyacrylate necessarily has a regeneration temperature of 40-80 C.
Regarding claim 8, Common et al. in view of Shimano et al. do not disclose volume ratio of the water-absorbent resin particles, i.e. polymer sorbent, to the thermal insulator as presently claimed.
However, Shimano et al. disclose that the amount of the water-absorbent resin affects the condensation prevention properties was well as the swelling of the fabric (see paragraphs 0018- 0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use amount of water-absorbent resin particles, i.e. polymer sorbent, including that presently claimed, in Common et al. in view of Shimano et al. in order to produce a thermal insulator with sufficient condensation prevention properties that does not swell the fabric resulting in a slimy texture, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lei et al. ("Tailoring Structural and Physical Properties of Polymethylsilsesquioxane Aerogels by Adjusting NH3 . H2O Concentration") disclose polymethylsilsesquioxane aerogel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Callie Shosho whose telephone number is (571)272-1123. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 am - 5:00 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787