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 01/05/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 09/03/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, 12 and 19 have been amended. Claims 13 and 20 have been canceled. New claim 21 has been added. Claims 12 and 14-19 maintain withdrawn. Claims 1-12, 14-19 and 21 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 has been amended to address the indefiniteness, thus the rejection of claims 1-11 under 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 01/05/2026 in pages 5 and 6, with respect to claims 1 and 2 under 102/103 rejection, 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.
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, 7-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dezon-Gaillard et al. (US 2012/0055662) in view of Abdul-Kader et al. (US 2022/0048815-of record) and Fikani (US 2001/0033044).
With respect to claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 21, 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 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]), and in another embodiment (Fig. 4) Dezon-Gaillard further teaches that the visible material of the insulator 108 includes a flowable solid 170 filled, at least in part, between the components of the HR system 100 and it will be appreciated that other variations of the placement of the insulator 108 are possible (Pa [0060]), but does not explicitly teach that 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, the panel walls defining at least one closed interior cavity; and an insulation material is disposed in the at least one closed interior cavity.
In the same field of endeavor, thermally insulating fabric, Abdul-Kader ‘815 teaches that thermally insulating fabric can be easily installed around and provides good contact with the product to be insulated (Pa [0005]), by using fumed silica instead of aerogel in the thermally insulating fabric according to the present invention the problem of dust development is eliminated or at least diminished (Pa [0007]) and the textile fabric layer may be filled with fumed silica by layered composite method wherein composites are formed by a sandwich technique of a layer of fumed silica powder between textile fabric layers interlocked by stiches or hot rolling (Pa [0056]).
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 Abdul-Kader ‘815 and substitute the textile fabric layers for the insulator in order to easily install the thermally insulating fabric around and provides good contact with the product to be insulated and eliminate or at least diminish the problem of dust development.
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, an injection molding system, Fikani teaches that to prevent the outer sleeve 22 from falling off the inner sleeve 20, a joining means 44 is provided between the inner sleeve 20 and the outer sleeve 22, the joining means 44 would preferably be formed on the outer surface of the inner piece 20 and could be a series of circumferential ridges, an external thread, an array of through holes or protrusions or the like (Pa [0026]).
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 in view of Abdul-Kader ‘815 with the teachings of Fikani and provide an array of through holes or protrusions with the insulator and the heatable manifold as a joining means in order to prevent the insulator from falling off the heatable manifold.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Abdul-Kader ‘815 as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above teaches that the insulation material is granular (“fumed silica powder”, Pa [0016]).
With respect to claim 4, Abdul-Kader ‘815 as applied in the combination regarding claim 3 above further teaches that the composition includes silicon carbide (Pa [0034]).
With respect to claim 5, Abdul-Kader ‘815 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 (“the thermally insulating fabric comprises a textile fabric layer, which comprises fumed silica powder …in a range of 40 to 50% w.”, Pa [0016]).
With respect to claim 9, the combination as applied to claim 1 does not explicitly teach that the panel is cylindrical. However, one would have found it obvious to change the shape of the panel in order to easily install the thermally insulating fabric around and provides good contact with the product to be insulated, since it has been held that The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dezon-Gaillard et al. (US 2012/0055662) in view of Abdul-Kader et al. (US 2022/0048815-of record) and Fikani (US 2001/0033044) 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, Abdul-Kader ‘815 as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the composition includes silicon carbide (Pa [0034]), 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 ‘617 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]), the granular fibre-free microporous thermal insulation material may have substantially the following composition: 40-85% dry weight microporous insulating material and 15-60% dry weight infrared opacifier material (Pa [0033]-[0035]), and the microporous insulating material may comprise silica, for example fumed and/or precipitated silica (Pa [0042]), and the opacifier material may be selected from silicon carbide (Pa [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Abdul-Kader ‘815 with the teachings of Abdul-Kader ‘617 and provide 15-60% dry weight silicon carbide with fumed silica as the infrared opacifier material in order to form the thermally insulating fabric. 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 ‘617 overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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