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.
Claim(s) 1-19 and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fullerton (WO 2019/152718) in view of Damarell et al. (US 2018/0265274). 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, 3-4 and 16, 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 the same polymeric material such as polyethylene polymers (abstract, 0003, 0027, 0036) 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.
Fullerton fails to disclose the second layer is formed as woven fabric or non woven material.
Damarell discloses food packaging comprising a middle layer wherein the middle layer is formed of non woven fibers to obtain a flexibility (0121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use non woven material of the Damarell in the packaging material of Fullerton including in the second layer to obtain flexibility.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Fullerton in view of Damarell 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 in view of Damarell 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).
Regarding claim 5, Fullerton in view of Damarell 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 in view of Damarell 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 in view of Damarell 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 in view of Damarell 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 in view of Damarell 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 in view of Damarell 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 in view of Damarell 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 in view of Damarell 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 in view of Damarell 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 in view of Damarell 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(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fullerton (US 2020/0369456) in view of Damarell et al. (US 2018/0265274) and further in view of Koenigsberger et al. (US 2016/0375614).
Regarding claims 20-21, Fullerton in view of Damarell 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 in view of Damarell 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 Damarell et al. (US 2018/0265274) and further in view of Ennis et al. (US 2016/0016386).
Regarding claims 30-31, Fullerton in view of Damarell 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 in view of Damarell 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fullerton does not disclose a woven fabric or a non woven material. Examiner agrees with the applicant and which is why the rejection is modified.
However, note that while Koenigsberger and Ennis do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Koenigsberger and Ennis are used as teaching references, and therefore, it is not necessary for these secondary references to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather these references teach a certain concept, namely 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 and Ennis discloses reflective insulation material comprising layers arrangement wherein the structure comprises perforations to enable air to escape from layers during manufacturing, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights