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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 on07/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding Wang. Applicant primarily argues neither Wang does not teach that one or more gas channels have a height between 25 to 45 percent of the thickness of the thermal insulation board. While it is true that the reference does not expressly teaches the height of the channels thus the reference no longer anticipates the claim, however It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made height of the channels within the claimed range, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. 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). Thus, the rejections remain as set forth below.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding Konstantinou. Applicant primarily argues neither Konstantinou does not teach that one or more gas channels have a height between 25 to 45 percent of the thickness of the thermal insulation board. While it is true that the reference does not expressly teaches the height of the channels as claimed, Konstantinou does teach the thickness of the material, and the hole/channel diameter may be adjusted depending on the application and desired thermal resistance.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made height of the channels within the claimed range, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. 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). Thus, the rejections remain as 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the foil" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Perhaps, the claim is meant to depend on claim 7 or 8?
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the structure" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 10-12, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 211690844 U) [IDS dated 11/10/2023].
The Examiner has previously provided a machine translation of (CN 211690844 U). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claim 1, Wang teaches a thermal insulation board for use in thermal insulation of a structure, comprising a first side face and a second side face opposite to the first face, the insulation board having a thickness of thermal insulation material between the first face and the second face defining the thermal insulation direction of the board, wherein the insulation board comprises one or more gas channels (2, 21, 22) formed to the insulation material and extending between the first face and the second face, each gas channel having a first end and a second end, and both of the first end and the second end are closed preventing gas flow via said channel end, and that the one or more gas channels are arranged at least partly to an angled orientation such that the first end of the channel residing closer to the first face is vertically lower, in a usage position of the thermal insulation board, than the second end of the gas channel residing closer to the second face of the insulation board [lines 21-23, 42-46, 62-63, 79-80, 128-137, 148-150, Fig. 2 (Fig. 2 reproduced below)].
Wang does not expressly teach that one or more gas channels have a height between 25 to 45 percent of the thickness of the thermal insulation board.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the height of the channels within the claimed range, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. 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
PNG
media_image1.png
521
375
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang’s Fig. 2
In regards to claim 2, Wang further teaches the holes/channels span to both ends of the board [Figs. 1-2, lines 128-137].
In regards to claim 3, Wang further teaches the holes/channels have openings on at least one face [Fig. 1, lines 42-26, 128-137].
In regards to claim 4, Wang further teaches wherein the gas channel is arranged to rise in vertical direction in constant manner from the first face to the second face [Figs. 1-2, lines 128-137].
In regards to claim 5, Wang further teaches wherein the one or more gas channels have a rectangular or round cross-section in a longitudinal direction of the channel [Figs. 1-2, lines 104-137].
In regards to claim 6, Wang further teaches the channels are plugged forming a closed space [Fig. 2, lines 62-67, 141-150]
In regards to claim 10, Wang further teaches the insulation board comprises a plurality of adjacent and mutually aligned channels [Figs. 1-2].
In regards to claim 11, Wang further teaches the channels have a larger cross-section at the end of the channel than in a portion between the ends of the channel [Figs. 1-2, lines 128-137].
In regards to claim 12, Wang further teaches wherein the gas channel is arranged to an angle from 15 to 75 degrees compared to a horizontal level [Figs. 1-2, lines 128-137].
In regards to claim 14, Wang further teaches the insulation board is generally solid [Figs. 1-2, lines 117-137].
In regards to claim 17, Wang further teaches wherein the thickness of insulation material and orientation of the gas channels are configured to prevent heat entry to inside of a building during daytime when outside temperature is high, and the orientation of the gas channels are configured to convey heat from the inside of the building to the outside of the building during night-time when the outside temperature is lower than the inside temperature [Figs. 1-2, lines 31-34, 42-46, 104-137].
Claims 7-8, 16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 211690844 U) [IDS dated 11/10/2023], as applied to claims 1-2 above, and in further view of Anderson et al. (US 20090313930 A1).
In regards to claims 7-8 and 16, Wang does not teach that an opaque foil is arranged to cover at least substantially a face and the channels of the insulation board.
Anderson teaches a thermal insulation sheeting [Abstract, claim 1].
Anderson teaches that the outer layers of the sheeting comprise reinforced aluminum foil [Abstract, 0013, 0054]. Anderson teaches the foil provides reinforcing and heat reflective characteristics [Abstract, 0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added at least one of the outer foils of Anderson to the insulation board of Wang. One would have been motivated to do so based on the foil’s reinforcing ability and heat reflective characteristics. The aluminum foil is opaque.
In regards to claims 20-21, modified Wang teaches the thermal insulation board is opaque.
Wang further teaches wherein the thickness of insulation material and orientation of the gas channels are configured to prevent heat entry to inside of a building during daytime when outside temperature is high, and the orientation of the gas channels are configured to convey heat from the inside of the building to the outside of the building during night-time when the outside temperature is lower than the inside temperature [Figs. 1-2, lines 31-34, 42-46, 104-137].
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, 14, 16-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konstantinou (GR1008110B) [IDS dated 04/15/2025].
The Examiner has previously provided a machine translation of (GR1008110B) in the action dated 04/15/205. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
The Examiner has previously provided a machine translation of (GR1008110B) which was included with the IDS dated 04/15/2025. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claim 1, Konstantinou teaches a thermal insulation board for use in thermal insulation of a structure [0007-0008], comprising a first face and a second face opposite to the first face, the insulation board having a thickness of thermal insulation material between the first face and the second face defining the thermal insulation direction of the board, wherein the insulation board comprises one or more gas channels/cells formed to the insulation material and extending between the first face and the second face, each gas channel having a first end and a second end, and both of the first end and the second end are closed preventing gas flow via said channel end, and that the one or more gas channels are arranged at least partly to an angled orientation of 45 degrees such that the first end of the channel residing closer to the first face is vertically lower, in a usage position of the thermal insulation board, than the second end of the gas channel residing closer to the second face of the insulation board [0007-0008, 0012-0013, Figs. 2-4].
Konstantinou does not expressly teach that one or more gas channels have a height between 25 to 45 percent of the thickness of the thermal insulation board. However, Konstantinou does teach the thickness of the material, and the hole/channel diameter may be adjusted depending on the application and desired thermal resistance.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made height of the channels within the claimed range, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. 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).
In regards to claim 2, Konstantinou further teaches the cells/channels span substantially to both ends of the board [Figs. 2-3].
In regards to claim 4, Konstantinou further teaches wherein the gas channel is arranged to rise in vertical direction in constant manner from the first face to the second face as honeycomb cells [Figs. 1-2, 0012].
In regards to claim 5, Konstantinou further teaches the cells/channels are square of circular [claim 3].
Konstantinou differs from claim 5 by teaching square and circular in a list of cross-sect, such that it cannot be said that the square and circular species are anticipated.
However, it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed any of the protective layers taught by Konstantinou, including square and circular. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claim 6, Konstantinou further teaches the channels/cells are closed forming a closed space [Figs. 1-3, 0012-0013].
In regards to claim 7, Konstantinou further teaches the insulation board comprises a foil attached to at one of the first face and the second face, which foil is arranged to cover an end of the channel to prevent gas flow through the end of the channel [Fig 2, 0007].
In regards to claim 8, Konstantinou further teaches wherein the foil is arranged to cover at least substantially the first face or the second face [Fig 2, 0007].
In regards to claim 9, Konstantinou further teaches wherein the insulation board is arranged as a honeycomb structure having a plurality of adjacent and parallel hexagonal or round channels, which channels are arranged to an angled orientation to a mounting orientation of the thermal insulation board [0012].
In regards to claims 10 and 12, Konstantinou further teaches the insulation board comprises a plurality of adjacent and mutually aligned channels in the form of honeycomb cells arranged at a 45 degree angle [0012].
In regards to claim 14, Konstantinou further teaches the insulation board is generally solid [0010-0011].
In regards to claims 16 and 20, Konstantinou further teaches the insulation board is generally solid [0010-0011].
In regards to claim 17, Konstantinou further teaches wherein the thickness of insulation material and orientation of the gas channels are configured to prevent heat entry to inside of a building during daytime when outside temperature is high, and the orientation of the gas channels are configured to convey heat from the inside of the building to the outside of the building during night-time when the outside temperature is lower than the inside temperature [0003, 0008, 0013-0014].
In regards to claim 21, Konstantinou further teaches wherein the structure is a building, and wherein the first face is configured to be arranged towards an interior of the building, and the second face is configured to be arranged towards an exterior of the building [0003, 0009, 0012-0014, claim 12].
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 10, 12, 14, 16-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruhwiler (CH 714367 A2) [cited 07/25/2025]
The Examiner has previously provided a machine translation of (CH 714367 A2). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1-2, Bruhwiler teaches a thermal insulation panel [Abstract, 0006, Figs. 4-5]. The insulation panel has cavities/channels that extend substantially from a first face to a second face through the insulation material [0005-0006, 0015-0016, 0018, 0021. Figs. 4-5]. The cavities/channels are inclined with the outer end lower than their inner end [0037-0041, Fig. 4-5]. At least one end of the channels/cavities is closed via a cover plate or wall [0058-0059, 0065-0066, 0068, 0075, Fig. 4-5].
Bruhwiler does not expressly teach that one or more gas channels have a height between 25 to 45 percent of the thickness of the thermal insulation board. Bruhwiler does teach that the height of the channel is less than the thickness of the panel, this overlaps the claimed range [Fig. 6, 0076-0077].
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made height of the channels within the claimed range, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. 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).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
PNG
media_image2.png
683
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Bruhwiler further teaches the gas channel/cavities is arranged to rise in vertical direction in constant manner from the first side face to the second side face [Figs. 4-5, 0039-0040].
Regarding claim 5, Bruhwiler further teaches the one or more gas channels have a rectangular cross-section in a longitudinal direction of the channel [Figs. 4-5].
Regarding claim 6, Bruhwiler further teaches the cavities/channels are hermetically sealed [0065-0066, 0068].
Regarding claim 10, Bruhwiler further teaches the insulation board comprises a plurality of adjacent and mutually aligned channels [Figs. 4-5, 0041].
Regarding claim 12, Bruhwiler further teaches the angle of incline of the cavities is greater than 10 degrees to less than 50 degrees [0039]. This overlaps this claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Bruhwiler further teaches the thermal insulation material is a generally solid [0021, 0044].
Regarding claims 16 and 20, Bruhwiler further teaches the thermal insulation material is mineral wool and thus is opaque [0021].
In regards to claim 17, Bruhwiler further teaches wherein the thickness of insulation material and orientation of the gas channels are configured to prevent heat entry to inside of a building during daytime when outside temperature is high, and the orientation of the gas channels are configured to convey heat from the inside of the building to the outside of the building during night-time when the outside temperature is lower than the inside temperature [ 0001-0002, 0006, 0015, 0038, 0049, Figs. 4-6].
In regards to claim 21, Bruhwiler further teaches wherein the structure is a building, and wherein the first face is configured to be arranged towards an interior of the building, and the second face is configured to be arranged towards an exterior of the building [ 0001, 0022, 0038, 0049, Figs. 4-6].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights