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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06 May 2026 has been entered.
Introduction
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 5, 8-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuppens et al. (US 2022/0403662 A1).
As to claims 1 and 15, Kuppens et al. discloses a coated insulation product, where the substrate may be cellular glass. See the abstract. The coating contains an alkali silicate that may solely be potassium silicate. See the abstract, and paragraph [0144]. The coating has a thickness such as 1.5 mm (1500 µm) or 3 mm (3000 µm). See Table 5. The product is formed by applying the coating to the substrate. See paragraph [0049].
Kuppens et al. expressly discloses that potassium silicate may be the sole silicate. See paragraph [0149]. Therefore, the silicate is “selected from the group consisting of … potassium silicate….”
The protective layer of Kuppens may be applied to the lower portion of the cellular glass (C), and a waterproofing layer (D) is subsequently applied to the lower portion of the cellular glass. See the figure and paragraphs [0028] and [0031]. The waterproofing layer (D) falls within the definition of a water repellant coating because the waterproofing layer would prevent (or repell) water from entering into the cellular glass from below.
Kuppens et al. does not disclose the ASTM E-84 rating of the end product. However, the product is identical to the presently claimed product in structure and composition. Therefore, the ASTM E-84 properties recited in claims 1, 10 and 11 are presumed to be inherent to the products of Kuppens et al.
As to claim 5, the coating of Kuppens et al. is non-combustible. See paragraph [0373].
As to claims 8 and 20, Kuppens et al. fails to expressly disclose the coating application coverage in terms of ft2/gallon. Kuppens et al. teaches a coverage amount of 2.4 kg/m2 for a 1.5 mm coating. See paragraph [0386]. 2.4 kg/m2 is 2400 g/m2 which falls within the preferred range of coverage for the instant invention. See paragraph [0044] of the pre-grant publication, US 20240182358, of the instant specification. For this reason, Example 5 of Kuppens et al. is presumed to inherently employ a coverage amount within the range of 10 to 600 ft2/gallon.
As to claim 9, Kuppens et al. teaches the inclusion of fillers such as silicates (i.e., a mineral filler). See paragraph [0194]. Kuppens et al. further teaches including compounds in the form of R-(OH)n (i.e., alcohols) in the composition in paragraphs [0170].
As to claim 12, Kuppens et al. teaches the product does not absorb water (see paragraph [0368]), but does not teach that the product was measured by ASTM C240. However, the product is identical to the presently claimed product in structure and composition. Therefore, the ASTM C240 properties recited in claims 12 and 20 are presumed to be inherent to the product of Kuppens et al.
As to claim 13, Kuppens et al. teaches the product may be used for insulating roofs in the abstract.
As to claim 14, no structural difference can be ascertained between a product that insulates a roof in general as taught by Kuppens et al. and a product that is used specifically for cryogenic spill tank.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights