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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments in the response dated March 16, 2025. However, new rejections may have been made using the same prior art if still applicable to the newly presented amendments and/or arguments.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The line “The second adhesive layer” contains a capitalized word that should not be there. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 24, 25, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: They depend from canceled claim 17. For the purpose of examination, they will be examined as being dependent from claim 1 Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 14 – 16, 18 – 25, 29 and 45 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.
The phrase “the protective layer is graphite” in claim 6 is unclear, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear from the claim language what is trying to be said with regard to the graphite layer. Does the layer only consist of graphite?
The phrase “each of the adhesive layer(s)” in claim 14 – 16 is unclear, which renders the claims vague and indefinite. The phrase states that there may be more than one adhesive layer in claim 1, which clearly has been amended to discuss a single adhesive layer. It is unclear where the additional adhesive layers are in the construction of the laminate.
The phrase “for at least one of the thermally-insulative layer(s)” in claim 18 – 25, and 29 is unclear, which renders the claims vague and indefinite. The phrase states that there may be more than one thermally-insulative layer in claim 1, which clearly has been amended to discuss a single thermally-insulative layer. It is unclear where the additional thermally-insulative layer are in the construction of the laminate.
The phrase “the one or more organic polymeric aerogel thermally-insulative layers, and one or more adhesive layers” in claim 45 is unclear, which renders the claim vague and definite. The phrase states that there may be more than one thermally-insulative layer and more than one adhesive layer in claim 1, which clearly has been amended to discuss a single layers. It is unclear where the additional layers are in the construction of the laminate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 14 – 16, 18 – 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sakatani et al.(USPGPub 2015/0077957 A1).
Sakatani et al. disclose a laminate (Figure 1A, #50) comprising: a thermally-insulative layer (Figure 1, #13), the thermally-insulative layer comprising an organic polymeric aerogel (Paragraphs 0036 – 0065), having a thermal conductivity that is less than or equal to 0.05 Watts per meter-Kelvin (W/m-K) (Paragraph 0036), and wherein the thermal- insulative layer has a thickness between 75 and 200 microns (Paragraph 0109); a protective layer comprising graphite (Paragraph 0028 and 0029), wherein the protective layer has a thickness between 35 and 127 microns and defines at least a portion of the front surface of the laminate (Figure 1A, #12; Paragraph 0029); and an adhesive layer disposed between and in direct contact with the protective layer and the thermally-insulative layer (Figure 1A, #15), wherein the laminate comprises a thickness that is less than or equal to 500 micrometers (Paragraph 0109); and wherein the laminate comprises a thermal diffusivity that is less than or equal to 0.10 square millimeters per second (mm2/s) (Figure 1A, #13, 15 and 12; Paragraphs 0028, 0029, 0036 – 0065, and 0109; Although Sakatani et al. does not explicitly teach the limitations, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. the aerogel being made from the same materials and having the desired thickness, the graphite layer having the same thickness and the adhesive adhering them together) and in the similar production steps (i.e. layered materials) used to produce the laminate. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. MPEP 2112.) as in claim 1. With respect to claim 2, a second adhesive layer coupled to the thermally-insulative layer, wherein at least a portion of a back surface of the laminate is defined by: the second adhesive layer (Figure 3, #13 and 15). Regarding claim 6, the protective layer is graphite (Paragraph 0028 and 0029). For claim 14, each of the adhesive layer(s) comprises acrylic (Paragraph 0105). In claim 15, each of the adhesive layer(s) has a thickness less than or equal to 50 µm (Paragraph 0109). With regard to claim 16, the thickness of each of the adhesive layer(s) is between 15 and 35 µm (Paragraph 0109). As in claim 18, for at least one of the thermally-insulative layer(s), the layer of polymeric aerogel comprises an open-cell structure (Paragraphs 0036 – 0065). With respect to claim 19, for at least one of the thermally-insulative layer(s), the layer of polymeric aerogel comprises mesopores (Paragraphs 0059 – 0060). Regarding claim 20, for at least one of the thermally-insulative layer(s), the layer of polymeric aerogel has a pore volume, and at least 10% of the pore volume is made up of micropores (Paragraphs 0059 – 0060). For claim 21, for at least one of the thermally-insulative layer(s), the layer of polymeric aerogel has a pore volume, and at least 10% of the pore volume is made up of mesopores (Paragraphs 0059 – 0060). In claim 22, for at least one of the thermally-insulative layer(s), the layer of polymeric aerogel has a pore volume, and at least 10% of the pore volume is made up of macropores (Paragraphs 0059 – 0060; Although Sakatani et al. does not explicitly teach the limitations, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. the aerogel being made from the same materials and having the desired thickness, the graphite layer having the same thickness and the adhesive adhering them together) and in the similar production steps (i.e. layered materials) used to produce the laminate. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. MPEP 2112.). With regard to claim 23, for at least one of the thermally-insulative layer(s), the layer of polymeric aerogel has a pore volume and at least 10% of the pore volume is made up of micropores and/or mesopores (Paragraphs 0059 – 0060). As in claim 24, for at least one of the thermally-insulative layer(s), the layer of polymeric aerogel has an average pore diameter that is between 2.0 nanometers (nm) and 50 nm (Paragraphs 0059 – 0060). With respect to claim 25, for at least one of the thermally-insulative layer(s), the layer of polymeric aerogel has: an average pore diameter between 50 nm and 5,000 nm; and/or a median pore diameter between 50 nm and 5,000 nm (Paragraphs 0059 – 0060). Regarding claim 45, the laminate consists of the graphite protective layer, the one or more organic polymeric aerogel thermally-insulative layers, and one or more adhesive layers (Figure 1A, #13, 15, and 12).
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.
Claims 11, 26 , 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakatani et al.(USPGPub 2015/0077957 A1) in view of Winthrop-Chen et al. (GB 2571292 A).
Sakatani et al. disclose a laminate (Figure 1A, #50) comprising: a thermally-insulative layer (Figure 1, #13), the thermally-insulative layer comprising an organic polymeric aerogel (Paragraphs 0036 – 0065), having a thermal conductivity that is less than or equal to 0.05 Watts per meter-Kelvin (W/m-K) (Paragraph 0036), and wherein the thermal- insulative layer has a thickness between 75 and 200 microns (Paragraph 0109); a protective layer comprising graphite (Paragraph 0028 and 0029), wherein the protective layer has a thickness between 35 and 127 microns and defines at least a portion of the front surface of the laminate (Figure 1A, #12; Paragraph 0029); and an adhesive layer disposed between and in direct contact with the protective layer and the thermally-insulative layer (Figure 1A, #15), wherein the laminate comprises a thickness that is less than or equal to 500 micrometers (Paragraph 0109); and wherein the laminate comprises a thermal diffusivity that is less than or equal to 0.10 square millimeters per second (mm2/s) (Figure 1A, #13, 15 and 12; Paragraphs 0028, 0029, 0036 – 0065, and 0109; Although Sakatani et al. does not explicitly teach the limitations, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. the aerogel being made from the same materials and having the desired thickness, the graphite layer having the same thickness and the adhesive adhering them together) and in the similar production steps (i.e. layered materials) used to produce the laminate. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. MPEP 2112.). However, Sakatani et al. fail to disclose the thickness of the protective layer is less than or equal from 40 µm to 60 µm, the average pore diameter is between 100 nm and 500 nm, and the median pore diameter is between 250 and 600 nm, for at least one of the thermally-insulative layer(s), the layer of polymeric aerogel comprises at least 90% by weight of polyimide, the thickness of the layer of polymeric aerogel is approximately 165 µm, the layer of polymeric aerogel has a decomposition temperature that is greater than or equal to 400 °C, a coefficient of thermal expansion of the layer of polymeric aerogel is less than or equal to 40 µm/m-K, a second thermally-insulative layer and a third adhesive layer, wherein the second thermally-insulative layer is directly adhered to the thermally-insulative polymeric organic aerogel by the third adhesive layer, and the laminate is disposed in a roll such that a portion of the front surface of the laminate faces a portion of the back surface of the laminate.
Winthrop-Chen et al. teach a laminate (Figures; Abstract) comprising: one or more thermally-insulative layers (Page 6, 3rd paragraph), each having a thermal conductivity that is less than or equal to 0.05 Watts per meter-Kelvin (W/m-K) (Example 1, Page 19, Although Winthrop-Chen et al. does not explicitly teach the limitations, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. same aerogel in the Example is the same as Applicant’s invention) and in the similar production steps (i.e. layered materials) used to produce the laminate. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. MPEP 2112.); and a protective layer directly adhered to the thermally-insulative layer, wherein the protective layer defines at least a portion of the front surface of the laminate (Page 10, 2nd full paragraph; Claims 1, 2 and 14), the thickness of the protective layer is less than or equal from 40 µm to 60 µm (Page 10, 1st paragraph), the average pore diameter is between 100 nm and 500 nm (Page 4, 1st full paragraph), and the median pore diameter is between 250 and 600 nm (Page 4, 1st full paragraph), the layer of polymeric aerogel comprises at least 90% by weight of polyimide (Page 4, 1st full paragraph; Page 9, 1st full paragraph), the thickness of the layer of polymeric aerogel is approximately 165 µm (Abstract), the layer of polymeric aerogel has a decomposition temperature that is greater than or equal to 400 °C, a coefficient of thermal expansion of the layer of polymeric aerogel is less than or equal to 40 µm/m-K (Abstract; Page 4, 1st full paragraph; Although Winthrop-Chen et al. does not explicitly teach the limitations, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. same aerogel in the Example is the same as Applicant’s invention) and in the similar production steps (i.e. layered materials) used to produce the laminate. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. MPEP 2112., a second thermally-insulative layer and a third adhesive layer, wherein the second thermally-insulative layer is directly adhered to the thermally-insulative polymeric organic aerogel by the third adhesive layer (Page 5, 3rd paragraph; Claims 14, 1 and 2), and the laminate is disposed in a roll such that a portion of the front surface of the laminate faces a portion of the back surface of the laminate (Page 18, 5th Paragraph) for the purpose of a composite with excellent thermal insulation (Page 3, line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a multilayer aerogel and adhesive construction in a roll form in Sakatani et al. in order to have a composite with excellent thermal insulation as taght by Winthrop-Chen et al.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakatani et al.(USPGPub 2015/0077957 A1) in view of Winthrop-Chen et al. (GB 2571292 A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hubbard et al. (WO 2017/200905 A1).
Sakatani et al., as modified with Winthrop-Chen et al., disclose the claimed laminate except for the second adhesive layer comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive.
Hubbard et al. teach a laminate (Figures; Abstract) comprising: one or more thermally-insulative layers (Figures), having a first adhesive layer coupled to the thermally-insulative layer(s) (Figure 1, #30), wherein at least a portion of a back surface of the laminate is defined by: the first adhesive layer (Figure 1, #30); or a liner layer removably disposed on the first adhesive layer (Figure 1, #34; Paragraph 0006), the first adhesive layer comprises a pressure- sensitive adhesive (Paragraph 0012), each of the adhesive layer(s) comprises silicone, acrylic, and/or rubber (Paragraphs 0050 – 0062), each of the adhesive layer(s) has a thickness that is less than or equal to 50 µm, and the thickness of each of the adhesive layer(s) is between 15 and 35 µm (Paragraph 0052) for the purpose of attaching the assembly to a surface (Paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have pressure sensitive adhesive layer in the modified Sakatani et al. in order to attach the assembly to a surface as taught by Hubbard et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 13 – 16, 18 – 26, 29, 31 – 33, 35, 38, and 45 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.
Please see the newly presented rejection in view of Sakatani et al., which discloses an aerogel laminate using a graphite layer.
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 Patricia L Nordmeyer whose telephone number is (571)272-1496. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6:30pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Patricia L. Nordmeyer/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/pln/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 April 1, 2026