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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 09/18/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 05/18/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 12, 14 and 16-18 have been amended. Claims 8, 11 and 15 have been canceled. New claims 22-25 have been added. Claims 12, 14 and 16-19 maintain withdrawn. Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-19 and 21-25 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 has been amended to address the indefiniteness, thus the rejection of claims 1-11 and 21 under 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 09/18/2026, with respect to claim 1 under 103 rejection, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn and PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New ground of rejection is set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dezon-Gaillard et al. (US 2012/0055662-of record) in view of Caps et al. (US 2022/0064939 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Dezon-Gaillard teaches an insulation system (“the insulator 108”, Pa [0059] and Fig. 3), comprising: a panel (“a panel”, Pa [0059]) configured to fit with a hot runner (“the HR system 100”), the panel having a panel geometry that is complementary to a hot runner geometry such that the panel fits intimately with the hot runner geometry (“the insulator 108 is located or received, at least in part, in the plate pocket 142 between the heatable manifold 140 and the plate structure 144.”, Pa [0059]).
Dezon-Gaillard further teaches that the insulator 108 includes an aerogel material, the aerogel material, for example, may form or include an aerogel blanket and/or a carrier including the aerogel material, a non-limiting example of the aerogel material includes an aerogel material having a silicon-based solid (Pa [0057]), and in Fig. 3, the visible material (of the insulator 108) is configured to form a blanket, which may also be called a panel, and which may be rigid or flexible in structure (Pa [0059]), but does not explicitly teach that (a) the hot runner geometry has protrusions and the panel geometry has through-holes that align with the protrusions such that the protrusions extend into the through-holes, (b) the panel having panel walls defining at least one closed interior cavity; and an insulation material is disposed in the at least one closed interior cavity.
As to (b), in the same field of endeavor, vacuum insulation panels, Caps teaches that a temperature-stable vacuum insulation element for use over a wide temperature range of high or low temperatures comprising: a core material of fumed silica, a fiber material, and a vacuum-tight envelope of the core material (Pa [0015]-[0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dezon-Gaillard with the teachings of Caps to substitute Caps’ vacuum insulation element for the panel for the purpose of using the vacuum insulation element over a wide temperature range of high or low temperatures.
As to (a), Dezon-Gaillard shows that the multiple insulators 108 are located on the surface of the heatable manifold 140 in Fig. 3. One would have found it obvious to form one panel of insulator to cover the surface of the heatable manifold 140 for the purpose of insulation in the plate pocket 142 between the heatable manifold 140 and the plate structure 144, since it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). One would have found it obvious to make through holes in the one panel of insulator in order to allow the elements which are not covered by the insulator in Fig. 3 to pass therethrough.
With respect to claim 2, Caps as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the insulation material is granular (“the core material, the fiber material, and the opacifier are formed in a binder-free compressed manner.”, Pa [0028]).
With respect to claim 3, Caps as applied in the combination regarding claim 2 above teaches that the insulation material has a composition that includes amorphous fumed silica (Pa [0027]).
With respect to claim 4, Caps as applied in the combination regarding claim 3 above teaches that the composition includes silicon carbide (Pa [0029]).
With respect to claim 5, Caps as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the insulation material has a composition that includes amorphous fumed silica, and the composition has, by weight, 30% to 70% of the amorphous fumed silica (“fumed silica in a proportion by weight in the range from 30% to 90%”, Pa [0016]). In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
With respect to claim 7, Caps as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the panel walls are stainless steel (“the envelope comprises at least two stainless steel foils”, Pa [0031]).
With respect to claim 9, Caps as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the use of two stainless steel foils of different thicknesses allows the envelope to be well shaped (Pa [0032]). Thus, one would have found it obvious to change the shape of the insulation element for the purpose of using it in a desired application.
With respect to claim 21, Caps as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the panel walls are fabric (“temperature-stable non-woven filter web is arranged between the envelope and the core material”, Pa [0036]) and are flexible and thus the panel is conformable to the hot runner geometry (“the use of two stainless steel foils of different thicknesses allows the envelope to be well shaped”, Pa [0032]).
With respect to claim 22, Caps as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the panel walls contain the insulation material in the at least one closed interior cavity (“the envelope comprises at least two stainless steel foils which are joined by welding.”, Pa [0031]).
With respect to claim 23, Dezon-Gaillard teaches as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the panel is secured to the hot runner (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 24, even though the combination as applied to claim 23 above does not explicitly teach that the panel is secured to the hot runner by at least one of thermal tape, a clip, a fastener, or a zip-tie, it is noted that the limitation is an intended use since the panel of prior art is capable of being secured by the claimed method. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claim 25, Caps as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the insulation material is loose within the at least one closed interior cavity (“the core material, the fiber material, and the opacifier are formed in a binder-free compressed manner.”, Pa [0028]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dezon-Gaillard et al. (US 2012/0055662-of record) in view of Caps et al. (US 2022/0064939 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Abdul-Kader et al. (US 2008/0277617-of record).
With respect to claim 6, Caps as applied in the combination regarding claim 5 above further teaches that the composition includes silicon carbide (Pa [0029]), but does not explicitly teach that the composition has, by weight, 70% to 30% of the silicon carbide.
In the same field of endeavor, a granular fibre-free microporous thermal insulation material, Abdul-Kader teaches that the granular fibre-free microporous thermal insulation material is free flowing, resistant to high temperatures and has relatively low thermal conductivity (Pa [0011]), a granular fibre-free microporous thermal insulation material, having a thermal conductivity less than 0.05 W/mK and a shrinkage of not more than 10%, which is free flowing and consists of granules formed from an intimate mixture of: 30-95% dry weight microporous insulating material, 5-70% dry weight infrared opacifier material, 0-50% particulate insulating filler material, and 0-5% binder material (Pa [0012]), the opacifier material may be silicon carbide (Pa [0041]), and the microporous insulating material may comprise silica, for example fumed and/or precipitated silica (Pa [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination with the teachings of Abdul-Kader and substitute the granular fibre-free microporous thermal insulation material for Caps’ in order to form insulation material being resistant to high temperatures and having relatively low thermal conductivity.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dezon-Gaillard et al. (US 2012/0055662-of record) in view of Caps et al. (US 2022/0064939 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Skurla, lll et al. (US 2022/0338576 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Caps as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the panel walls are fabric (“a finely porous, temperature-stable non-woven filter web is arranged between the envelope and the core material”, Pa [0036]), but does not explicitly teach that the panel walls are fabric and are stitched together such that there are a plurality of the closed interior cavities.
In the same field of endeavor, insulated paneling, Skurla, lll teaches applying formation stitch lines to partially join two fabric layers together, wherein the formation stitch lines define insulation-panel-formation sections and gusset-formation sections located between the insulation-panel-formation sections, and applying, substantially orthogonal to the formation stitch lines, at least one finishing stitch line to seal the insulation-panel-formation sections (Pa [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination with the teachings of Skurla, lll in order to form and seal insulation-panel-formation sections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
