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 without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 34-37, 41-45 and 52-60 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/21/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 10 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “silver, gold”. It should be “silver or gold”.
Claim 10 should be dependent of claim 6 not claim 3.
Claim 21 recites “one flame retardant has aluminum hydroxide Al(OH)3”. It should be “one flame retardant is aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)3)”.
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 16 and 19 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.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, it is not clear what is meant by “several fibers”. How much fiber is considered to be a several fibers?
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-12, 14-15, 17-19 and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fullerton (WO 2019/152718). It is noted that when utilizing (WO 2019/152718), the disclosures of the reference are based on (US 2020/0369456) which is an English language equivalent of the reference.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, Fullerton discloses packaging insulating material, i.e. an insulation material, (abstract, 0070) comprising a metallized polyethylene film including a metallic layer such as aluminum and a polyethylene layer, i.e. first layer having upper side of reflector layer and an underside layer such as polyethylene layer, (0003, 0004, 0036) and a polyethylene bubble layer, i.e. one second layer formed as a spacing layer, (0003). Given that the first layer and the second layer of Fullerton comprising only polyethylene polymers (abstract, 0003) similar to the present specification on page 8, line 26 to page 9, line 5, it is clear the polymeric constituents of first layer and the second layer of Fullerton are formed of an unmixed polymeric material.
Regarding claim 5, Fullerton discloses the insulation material of claim 3, wherein given that Fullerton discloses the same reflective layer as claimed in present claim, it is clear that the reflective layer of Fullerton would inherently have the same property as present claim.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Fullerton discloses the insulation material of claim 3, wherein metallic layer 192, i.e. metal and one absorbing layer, is applied to the underside of the at least one first layer (fig. 7, 0056).
Regarding claim 8, Fullerton discloses the insulation material of claim 6, wherein given that Fullerton discloses the same absorbing layer as claimed in present claim, it is clear that the absorbing layer of Fullerton would inherently have the same property as present claim.
Regarding claim 9, Fullerton discloses the insulation material of claim 3, wherein the reflective layer has a thickness in a range from 0.1 to 1 microns (0002).
Regarding claim 10, Fullerton discloses the insulation material of claim 6, wherein the metal layer has a thickness in a range from 0.1 to 1 microns (0002).
Although Fullerton does not disclose vapor deposited in high vacuum, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Fullerton meets the requirements of the claimed insulation material, Fullerton clearly meets the requirements of the present claims.
Regarding claims 11-12, Fullerton discloses the insulation material of claim 1, wherein a metallic layer 192 such as aluminum, i.e. inorganic coating and inhibiting layer, is applied to the underside of the at least one first layer (fig. 7, 0056).
The recitation in the claims that the inhibiting layer is “for improving corrosion resistance” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Fullerton discloses the aluminum layer as presently claimed, it is clear that the aluminum layer of Fullerton would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. improving corrosion resistance, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP.
Regarding claim 14, Fullerton discloses the insulation material of claim 1, wherein the second layer is formed as a gas filled bubble layer, i.e. gas cushion film, (0003).
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Fullerton discloses the insulation material of claim 1, wherein the second layer has a hexagonal shape, i.e. a support structure having honeycomb structure and two or more chambers and chambers are delimited, (0035, fig. 7).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Fullerton discloses the insulation material of claim 17, wherein the support structure is gas filled polyethylene bubble layer, i.e. airtight polymeric structure with gas, (0003).
Regarding claims 32-33, Fullerton discloses the insulation material of claim 1, wherein given that Fullerton discloses the same insulation material as claimed in present claim, it is clear that the insulation material of Fullerton would inherently have the same property as present claim.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fullerton (US 2020/0369456).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Fullerton discloses the insulation material of claim 1, but fails to disclose the thickness of the first and second layers.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific thickness of the first and second layers is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the flexibility is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the thickness of the first and second layers, the precise thickness would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the first and second layers in Fullerton to obtain the desired flexibility (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 16 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fullerton (US 2020/0369456) in view of Koenigsberger et al. (US 2016/0375614).
Regarding claims 20-21, Fullerton discloses the insulation material of claim 1, but fails to disclose flame retardant such as aluminum hydroxide.
Koenigsberger discloses insulating web comprising plastic material and additives such as fibers and fire retardant such as aluminum hydroxide to obtain fire retardant property and durability (0038-0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the additives such as fibers and fire retardant such as aluminum hydroxide of Koenigsberger in the insulation material including the second polymeric layer of Fullerton to obtain fire retardant property and durability.
Claim(s) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fullerton (US 2020/0369456) in view of Ennis et al. (US 2016/0016386).
Regarding claims 30-31, Fullerton discloses the insulation material of claim 1, but fails to disclose the predefined openings and a reinforcement made of the unmixed material.
Ennis discloses reflective insulation material (title) comprising layers arrangement (fig. 1) wherein the structure comprises perforations, i.e. predefined openings, to enable air to escape from layers during manufacturing (0016-0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the predefined openings of Ennis in the insulating material of Fullerton to enable air to escape from layers during manufacturing. Given that the opening is between the structure of Fullerton and Ennis, it is clear that must be made of unmixed polymeric material as explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787