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
No amendment has been made on the Arguments/Remarks filed 05/11/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 01/30/2026. Claims 12 and 14-19 maintain withdrawn. Claims 1-12, 14-19 and 21 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 05/11/2026, 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn and PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED.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 § 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.
Claims 1-11 and 21 are 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 1 recites the limitation “the panel walls” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining dependent claims 2-11 and 21 are also rejected under 112 (b) because they depend from, and thus include all the limitations of rejected claim 1.
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 1-3, 7-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dezon-Gaillard et al. (US 2012/0055662-of record) in view of Van Gucht et al. (US 2019/0249816).
With respect to claims 1 and 8, 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 walls defining at least one closed interior cavity; and an insulation material is disposed in the at least one closed interior cavity.
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/blanket 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/blanket of insulator in order to allow the elements which are not covered by the insulator in Fig. 3 to pass therethrough.
As to (b), in the same field of endeavor, a thermally insulating cloth, Van Gucht teaches a thermally insulating cloth which suffer less of dust release during installation and once installed (Pa [0004]), the thermally insulating cloth has a layered structure comprising at least three layers, a first and a second outer textile layer providing the outer surfaces of said cloth, and an intermediate layer, said intermediate layer comprising a textile fabric which comprises aerogel powder (Pa [0005]).
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 Van Gucht to form the blanket of insulator according to Van Gucht using the aerogel material of Dezon-Gaillard in order to form a thermally insulating cloth which suffer less of dust release during installation and once installed.
With respect to claim 2, Van Gucht as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the insulation material is granular (“Aerogel powders are composed of particles”, Pa [0055]).
With respect to claim 3, the combination regarding claim 2 above teaches that the insulation material has a composition that includes amorphous fumed silica (Dezon-Gaillard: “silica aerogel”, Pa [0057]; Van Gucht: “fumed silica”, Pa [0053]).
With respect to claim 7, Van Gucht as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the panel walls are fabric (“a first and a second outer textile layer… intermediate layer comprising a textile fabric”, Pa [0005]).
With respect to claim 9, Van Gucht as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 further teaches that the panel is cylindrical (“they are pliable around a tubular object having a bending radius of 1.5 inch (3.81 cm) or less.”, Pa [0020]).
With respect to claim 10, Van Gucht as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 further teaches that the panel walls are fabric and are stitched together such that there are a plurality of the closed interior cavities (“The intermediate layer may comprise a woven, nonwoven, kitted or braided textile fabric.”, Pa [0045]; “said intermediate layer comprising a textile fabric which comprises aerogel powder, in an amount in a range of 1 to 70% w.”, Pa [0005]).
With respect to claim 11, Van Gucht as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 further teaches that the panel is flexible (“they are pliable”, Pa [0020]).
With respect to claim 21, Van Gucht as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 further teaches that the panel walls are fabric and are flexible and thus the panel is conformable to the hot runner geometry (“a first and a second outer textile layer… intermediate layer comprising a textile fabric”, Pa [0005], “they are pliable around a tubular object”, Pa [0020]).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dezon-Gaillard et al. (US 2012/0055662-of record) in view of Van Gucht et al. (US 2019/0249816) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Abdul-Kader et al. (US 2008/0277617-of record).
With respect to claim 4, the combination as applied to claim 3 above does not explicitly teach that the composition includes 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 Dezon-Gaillard’s aerogel material in order to form insulation material being resistant to high temperatures and having relatively low thermal conductivity.
With respect to claim 5, the combination as applied to claim 1 above teaches that the insulation material has a composition that includes amorphous fumed silica (Dezon-Gaillard: “silica aerogel”, Pa [0057]; Van Gucht: “fumed silica”, Pa [0053]), but does not explicitly teach that the composition has, by weight, 30% to 70% of the amorphous fumed silica.
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 Dezon-Gaillard’s aerogel material in order to form insulation material being resistant to high temperatures and having relatively low thermal conductivity. The one before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would consider the invention to be obvious because the range of the content of fumed silica taught by Abdul-Kader overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
With respect to claim 6, Abdul-Kader as applied in the combination regarding claim 5 above teaches that the composition includes silicon carbide, and the composition has, by weight, 5% to 70% of the silicon carbide (“5-70% dry weight infrared opacifier material”, Pa [0012]); “the opacifier material may be silicon carbide”, Pa [0041]). The one before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would consider the invention to be obvious because the range of the content of silicon carbide taught by Abdul-Kader overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
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
Prosecution Insights