Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Burley, U.S. Patent No. 4,281,802. Burley discloses a flexible and rollable laminate comprising a central closed foam layer 41 and outer layers 43 and 42. The material is used as a thermally insulating cover for ice in skating rinks. See col.4, lines 54-65; col. 5, lines 13-49. While Burley does not disclose the claimed R value, it is reasonable to expect that the material would either necessarily possess the claimed R value since it is sufficient to maintain ice in a frozen state, or in the alternative, to have selected suitable materials and thicknesses which produced the desired R value.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9,11-12 is/are rejected pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Veiga et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,622,662 in view of Thielmann, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0269450.
Veiga discloses a layered structure comprising a central foam layer, a barrier layer 12 and a decoupling layer 16. The barrier layer can have a thickness of 2-160 mils, the foam layer can have a thickness of20-850 mils and the decoupling layer can have a thickness of 150-2000 mils. Thus, Veiga discloses ranges which encompass thickness values for the central foam layer as well as the two outer layers which meet the values as set forth in the claims. See col. 3, lines 24-27. Specifically, if the foam layer has a thickness of 850 mils and the other layers have a thickness of 2 and 150 mils, the structure as a whole has a thickness of 1002 mils, and the central foam layer comprises about 85% of the thickness of the structure. This meets the limitations of claim 1.
With regard to claim 2, it also meets the limitation of being not more than 96.8% of the thickness of the structure.
With regard to claim 3, considering the decoupling layer as the first layer, if the foam is 850 mils and the first layer is 150-2000 mils, the thickness of the second (foam) layer is at least 2.9 times greater than a thickness of the first layer, for thickness values for the first layer (decoupling layer), of 293 or less.
With regard to claim 4, if the foam layer is 850 and the first layer is 150-2000mils, the foam layer is not more than 32.26 times thicker the first layer.
With regard to claim 5, if the barrier layer is 2-29 mils, (the range is 2-160 mils), the second,(foam), layer is at least 29 times greater than a thickness of the third layer.
With regard to claim 6, if the third layer has a thickness of 2mils, then the foam layer with a thickness of 850 mils is not more than 484 times thicker, (since 2 times 484 is 968 mils).
With regard to claim 13, the second, (foam) layer is at least 72.5% of the total thickness of the panel, ( if the foam is 850, the first layer is 150 and the third layer is 2).
With regard to claims 7-9, 11-12, the layers are not disclosed as being elastic or compressible and would have some degree of resistance to stretching, and are not disclosed as having seam or channels and are continuous. The structure is disclosed as being flexible and thus is capable of being used as rollable door panel. See col. 5, lines 20-28.
Therefore, Veiga teaches ranges which meet the particular thickness relationships between the first, second and third layers as claimed. However, in the alternative, if it is considered that Veiga does not teach the particular values which anticipate the claimed thickness relationships with sufficient specificity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected values for each of the layers which produced a structure having the desired degree of insulation and flexibility.
Veiga differs from the claimed invention because it does not teach a closed cell foam.
However, Thielmann teaches at paragraph 0026 that both open and closed cells foams can be used to provide sound and heat insulation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected either open or closed cell foam to provide a thermally insulating and sound absorbing structure, in view of the teaching of Thielmann that both are useful.
With regard to the claimed R value, it would have been obvious to have selected a foam which provided the desired and necessary degree of insulation to the structure.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Veiga et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,622,662 in view of Thielmann, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0269450 and further in view of Groft et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0118408.
Veiga discloses a structure as set forth above.
Veiga differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the first layer extends beyond the second and third layers.
However, Groft teaches a multi-layered insulation structure wherein one layer extends past the others in order to enable the structures to be easily combined. See paragraphs 0035-0038.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided an extended layer on the structure of Veiga in order to allow the structure to be easily attached to another structure by the extended layer.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Veiga requires an open cell foam and that using a closed cell foam would destroy the intended purpose of Veiga of being a sound absorbing material. However, Veiga includes glass microspheres in the foam in order to lower the weight. The glass microspheres themselves would form closed cells in the foam since the glass microspheres are hollow in order to make the foam lighter. Additionally, employing a closed cell foam would not destroy the intended purpose of Veiga of being sound insulation but would allow for it to be used as both sound and thermal insulation as taught by Thielmann.
Since a new rejection is also set forth above, this action is not made final.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aanestad, WO 98/10216. Aanestad discloses a flexible and rollable insulation material which includes a central closed cell plastic layer also called bubble pack with outer reflective layers. The material is rollable. See abstract and figures as well as page 11, lines31 – page 12, line 5. The material can be used to insulate doors. Aanestad does not clearly equate the central closed cell plastic layer with closed cell foam per se. The outer layers can have a thickness of 1 mm. The material can have an R value of 12R for a 5/8 inch sheet. See page 13 lines 20-32.
Orologio, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0248805 teaches insulating materials including central insulating layers which may be closed cell plastic layers also called bubble layers or closed cell foams. See abstract. The insulating materials can be formed into insulating structures with additional layers. The central insulating layer can have a thickness of 0.5-1.25 cm. See paragraph 0104.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights