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, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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.
Claim 15 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 15 further limits the structure of the vacuum source however, the vacuum source is not positively recited in the claims. The shell having an opening to provide communication with a vacuum source does not require the claimed insulating element to include a vacuum source. Thus, it is unclear if claim 15 is intended for the structure of the insulating element to include the vacuum source or not.
For sake of further examination, as the claims are directed to an insulating element, the vacuum source structure will be viewed as optional.
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 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pherson et al. (US 2020/0407149).
Regarding claim 1, Pherson discloses a thermally insulated panel comprising skins (322) and a core (326). The skins having an interior and exterior (Fig. 5 and 6). The core positioned within the interior of the shell and inhibits collapse of the skins when subject to a pressure differential between the interior and exterior (0086).
The skins comprising a port (350) which defined an opening configured to provide communication with a vacuum source (0094-0095).
Regarding claim 2, the port coupled to the shell and in communication with the opening (0094) and fluidly coupled to with a vacuum source (0095).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Pherson teaches the port being adhered and/or mechanically secured to the skin (0089, 0121), thereby teach the port integrally formed or coupled by a compression seal as claimed.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Pherson teaches the core material may comprise fiberglass, fumed silica, aerogels (0084) as well as can be an open cell foam (0086).
Regarding claim 7, Pherson teaches the that the core is provided with sufficient structural properties to resist a vacuum load within the pocket (0098), thus the core would be configured to compress by no more than 50% (e.g., 0%) when subject to a total vacuum within the shell as claimed.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Pherson teaches that the edges of the skin are thermoformed such that they are joined together to encapsulate the core and form a hermetic seal (0087; instant sealing layer). The panel further may include an envelope formed of a metallic foil or sheet (0088) and the skins may include a protective out layer (0118).
Regarding claim 10, Pherson teaches that the core may include rigid tubes filled with filler material which decrease sensitivity to vacuum pressure and improve compressive and shear strength of the core (0103).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Pherson teaches that the core can handle a internal pressure in the core of less than 1 mbar (0122; about 750 mTorr) thus handling a pressure differential between the interior and the exterior (e.g., atmospheric pressure) which exceeds the claimed under 100 mTorr in claim 11 and under 10 mTorr in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Pherson teaches the protective layer including an infrared reflective layer (0118; instant opacifier).
Regarding claim 15, Pherson discloses use of a vacuum pump to draw a vacuum on the port (0121).
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pherson.
Regarding claim 14, Pherson does not expressly disclose the length and width of the skins of the VIP. However, as the present specification is silent to unexpected results, it would have been an obvious modification to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the length and width based on routine experimentation, for the purpose of optimizing operation of said VIP. Said obvious modifications including, selecting a thickness required for a given end use including those lengths and widths of at least 500 mm. Such modifications would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a components. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2D 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is no patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary the skin length and width including over the range presently claimed to create a VIP with a thickness required for a given end use.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781