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 .
Election/Restriction
Claims 10-17, and 19-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/9/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of group 1, claims 1-9, and 18 in the reply filed on 6/9/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that D’Arcy et al fails to disclose or reassembly suggest multiple elements of claim 1 as amended. This is not found persuasive because Group 1-7 lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of “a high temperature insulative composite”, this technical feature is common to each of Groups 1-7 and this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of D’Arcy (US Pub No. 2015/0176749)
D’Arcy et al. teaches a high temperature insulative composite [Abstract] comparing aerogel particles and PTFE, where the aerogel/PTFE particle mixture can be varied to adjust the thermal conductivity, dusting, formability and strength [0029-0030].
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9, and 18 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.
Regarding Claim 1, line 7-8, the limitation of “the weight percent” and “the total weight” and “the final high temperature” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation of “the form” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation of ‘one or more opacifier” is unclear if it is the same or different from “one or more opacifier” in claim 1.
Claims 3-4, 6-9, and 18 are also rejected since the claims depend on claim 1.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over d’Arcy (US Pub No. 2017/0203552) in view of Carbonell (US Pub No. 2006/0160064)
Regarding Claim 1, D’Arcy et al. teaches a high temperature insulative composite comprising:
20% or more by weight of polymer matrix overlapping the claimed 50 wt% or less of a polymer matrix;
30% or more by weight or aerogel overlapping more than 40 wt% aerogel particle [0009]; and additional particulate components [0009], where additional particulate components selected from one or more opacifier, one or more reinforcement fiber, and any combination thereof [0035], and silent in a fibrillated polymer matrix and more than 20 wt% of a combined total of additional particulate components selected from one or more opacifier, one or more reinforcement fiber, and any combination thereof, wherein the weight percent is based on the total weight of the final high temperature insulative composite, and wherein the aerogel particles and the additional particulate components are durably enmeshed within the fibrillated polymer matrix
Carbonell et al. teaches the use of fibrillated polymer matrices [0060].
Since D’Arcy et al. teaches the use of a polymer matrix, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the polymer matrix of D’Arcy et al. with the fibrillated polymer matrix of Carbonell et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of high temperature insulative composite, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of high temperature insulative composite are changed, the precise parameters of high temperature insulative composite would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “more than 20 wt% of a combined total of additional particulate components selected from one or more opacifier, one or more reinforcement fiber, and any combination thereof, wherein the weight percent is based on the total weight of the final high temperature insulative composite, ” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of high temperature insulative composite to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Within the combination above, modified D’Arcy et al. teaches and wherein the aerogel particles and the additional particulate components are durably enmeshed within the fibrillated polymer matrix [0035].
In the case where the claimed ranges “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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2, within the combination above, modified D’Arcy et al. is silent on in the form of a tube, tape or sheet having a thickness or a tube wall thickness of 5 mm or less.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of high temperature insulative composite, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of high temperature insulative composite are changed, the precise parameters of high temperature insulative composite would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “the form of a tube, tape or sheet having a thickness or a tube wall thickness of 5 mm or less.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of high temperature insulative composite to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 3, within the combination above, modified D’Arcy et al. teaches wherein the fibrillated polymer matrix comprises a polyolefin, an ultrahigh
molecular weight polyethylene, a fluoropolymer, polytetrafluoroethylene,
expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, a polyurethane, a polyester, a polyamide, or
any combination thereof [0011].
Regarding Claim 4, within the combination above, modified D’Arcy et al. teaches wherein
the polymer is an expanded polytetrafluorethylene (ePTFE), an expanded
ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (ePE) or a combination thereof [0011].
Regarding Claim 5, within the combination above, modified D’Arcy et al. teaches wherein the combined total of additional particulate components comprises less than 10% of one or more opacifier [0035].
Regarding Claim 6, within the combination above, modified D’Arcy et al. teaches wherein
the additional components comprise at least 2 wt% of the one or more
reinforcement fiber [0035, the reinforcement fiber is not required in claim 1].
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, modified D’Arcy et al. teaches wherein the opacifier is selected from carbon black, titanium dioxide, aluminum oxide, zirconium dioxide, iron oxides, silicon carbide, molybdenum silicide, manganese oxide, a polydialkylsiloxane
where the alkyl groups contain 1 to 7 carbon atoms, or any combination thereof [0035, at least titanium dioxide].
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified D’Arcy et al. teaches wherein the one or more reinforcement fibers comprise carbon fibers, glass fibers, aluminoborosilicate
fibers, or a combination thereof [0035, the reinforcement fiber is not required in claim 1].
Regarding Claim 18, within the combination above, modified D’Arcy et al. teaches an article comprising the high temperature insulative composite of claim 1 [abstract].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights