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 Arguments
The claim objections are withdrawn based upon the claim amendments.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections based on Wang in the response filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant primarily argues that Wang does not teach that "... the insulation board comprises one or more gas channels formed to the insulation material and extending between the first side face and the second side face...". This is not persuasive as Wang teaches the channels extend from one side face to the opposite side face as set forth in the rejections and seen on the figures. Thus, the rejections remain as set forth below.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections based on Konstantinou in the response filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant primarily argues that Konstantinou does not teach that "... the insulation board comprises one or more gas channels formed to the insulation material and extending between the first side face and the second side face...". This is not persuasive as Konstantinou teaches the channels extend substantially from one side face to the opposite side face as set forth in the rejections and seen on the figures. Thus, the rejections remain as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10-12, 14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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)].
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 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14, 16-17, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Konstantinou (GR1008110B) [IDS dated 04/15/2025].
The Examiner has re-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].
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 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 claims 17 and 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 11].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 no obviousness.
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].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 211690844 U) [IDS dated 11/10/2023], as applied to claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 13, Wang does not teach the height of the channels.
Wang discloses the claimed invention except for the height of the channels is between 25 to 45% of the thickness of the insulation board. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the height of the channels is between 25 to 45% of the thickness of the insulation board, 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).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konstantinou (GR1008110B) [IDS dated 04/15/2025], as applied to claim 1 above.
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 13, Konstantinou further teaches the channel has a height, and the height of the channel is between 25 to 45 percent of the thickness of the thermal insulation board as the size the holes/cells as well as then thickness of the material may be varied [0010-0011].
Konstantinou discloses the claimed invention except for the height of the channels is between 25 to 45% of the thickness of the insulation board. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the height of the channels is between 25 to 45% of the thickness of the insulation board, 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).
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 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