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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 12 (and claim 13 based on dependency) is 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. Claim 12 requires “a second resin layer on one surface.” However, the claim does not specify which surface this is applied to, such as the foam layer surface or the metal sheet surface. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to distinctly point out and claim the subject matter that is applicant’s invention. For the purposes of examination, the one surface is to be one surface of the metal sheet (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0156]).
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.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (JP H08-267628) in view of Ma et al. (CN 202882137).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches a flame-retardant composite insulation material (“a laminated structure”) characterized in that a surface material consisting of a metal foil and a flame-retardant fiber layer (“a metal sheet”) is laminated on one side of a resin foam so that the flame-retardant fiber layer is in contact with the resin foam (“resin foam”) (Paragraph [0008]). The metal foil prevents heat from being directly transferred from the foil to the resin foam (Paragraph [0039]).
Inoue is silent with respect to the surface layer further comprising additional metal layers.
Ma teaches a heat barrier material which comprises three aluminum foil layers which provides increased heat reflection compared to a single aluminum foil layer and base fabrics which improve intensity when having improved heat-proof quality (Paragraphs [0004]; [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the surface materials of Inoue such that they include more than one metal foil layer and more than one fiber layer such that the use of more than 1 metal foil layer and more than 1 fiber layer increases heat reflection and improved heat-proof quality, as taught by Ma, wherein the improvements further protect the resin foam layer heat sources. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the resulting structure is resin foam/fiber layer/foil layer/fiber layer/foil layer in order to achieve the above effects.
Furthermore, Inoue teaches the thickness of the metal foils being 20 to 60 microns and the thickness of the foam layer being 2 to 50 mm (Paragraphs [0012]; [0014]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the thickness of the metal foils being at least 40 microns in total would result in a ratio of the total thickness of the metal layers (microns) to the thickness of the resin foam (mm) being 20 (40 microns/2 mm) to 0.8 (40 microns/50 mm), both of which are greater than the claimed at least 0.7.
Regarding claim 2, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the metal foils have a thickness of 20 to 60 microns.
Regarding claim 3, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the surface materials include more than 1 metal foil layer and more than 1 fiber layer which would result in the structure of resin foam/fiber layer/foil layer/fiber layer/foil layer in order to achieve the above effects. The foil layers are further provided with a flame-retardant resin which would resultantly be placed between foil layers either as resin foam/fiber/resin/foil/fiber/resin/foil or resin foam/fiber/foil/resin/fiber/foil/resin.
Regarding claim 4, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the resin foams have a thickness of 2 to 50 mm, overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the surface materials include more than 1 metal foil layer and more than 1 fiber layer which would result in the structure of resin foam/fiber layer/foil layer/fiber layer/foil layer in order to achieve the above effects.
Regarding claim 6, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The metal foils may be aluminum foils (Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 7, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The resin foam may further include flame retardants (Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 8, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Inoue further teaches adhering layers on both sides of the resin foam using adhesives including acrylic, chloroprene, SBR, and other synthetic rubbers, as well as polyurethane and polyester adhesives (Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 9, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the surface materials include more than 1 metal foil layer and more than 1 fiber layer which would result in the structure of resin foam/fiber layer/foil layer/fiber layer/foil layer in order to achieve the above effects. The foil layers are further provided with a flame-retardant resin which would resultantly be placed between foil layers either as resin foam/fiber/resin/foil/fiber/resin/foil or resin foam/fiber/foil/resin/fiber/foil/resin.
Additionally, as discussed above, the thickness of the metal foils are from 20 to 60 microns.
Inoue and Ma are silent with respect to the metal sheet having a tear strength of 0.5 N or more.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials of the metal sheet and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that identical materials must have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01(I): Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. MPEP 2112.01(II): "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
In the instant case, the metal sheet only requires at least two metal layers and the instant specification describes improving the tear strength by using aluminum sheets with thicknesses of at least 25 microns (PGPUB, Paragraph [0145]; [0148]).
Inoue and Ma teach using at least two or more aluminum metal sheets which have thicknesses of 20 to 60 microns, overlapping with the preferred range.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the materials taught by the combination of Inoue and Ma are identical to those of applicant’s invention and, resultantly, would have identical properties, including having a tear strength of at least 0.5 N.
Regarding claim 10, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 9. As discussed above, the metal foils have a thickness of 20 to 60 microns.
Regarding claim 12, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 9. As discussed above, the surface materials include more than 1 metal foil layer and more than 1 fiber layer which would result in the structure of resin foam/fiber layer/foil layer/fiber layer/foil layer in order to achieve the above effects. The foil layers are further provided with a flame-retardant resin which would resultantly be placed between foil layers either as resin foam/fiber/resin/foil/fiber/resin/foil or resin foam/fiber/foil/resin/fiber/foil/resin. The resulting resin would be on at least one surface of the surface materials.
Regarding claim 14, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 9. As discussed above, the surface materials include more than 1 metal foil layer and more than 1 fiber layer which would result in the structure of resin foam/fiber layer/foil layer/fiber layer/foil layer in order to achieve the above effects.
Regarding claim 15, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 9. The metal foils may be aluminum foils (Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 16, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 9. As discussed above, the metal foils having thicknesses of 20 to 60 microns, which results in a total thickness of the metal layers being 40 to 120 microns.
Regarding claim 17, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 9. As discussed above, the metal foils having thicknesses of 20 to 60 microns, which results in a total thickness of the metal layers being 40 to 120 microns. Additionally, Ma teaches the thicknesses of the fabric layers being 10 to 30 microns, which results in a total thickness of 20 to 60 microns (Paragraph [0009]). Therefore, the resulting total thickness is 60 to 180 microns.
Regarding claim 18, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 9. Inoue further teaches adhering layers on both sides of the resin foam using adhesives including acrylic, chloroprene, SBR, and other synthetic rubbers, as well as polyurethane and polyester adhesives (Paragraph [0018]).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (JP H08-267628) in view of Ma et al. (CN 202882137), as applied to claims 10 and 12 above, and further in view of Qingdao (CN 103881185).
Regarding claim 11, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 10. As discussed above, the materials include a resin layer which may be any suitable flame-retardant composition (Paragraph [0015]).
Inoue is silent with respect to the resin comprising a polyolefin resin.
Qingdao teaches a flame-retardant polyethylene material which is halogen-free, low-smoke, non-toxic, has good processing performance, mechanical properties, and heat resistance (Paragraphs [0002]; [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the resins of Inoue from the flame-retardant polyethylene material, taught by Qingdao, which is halogen-free, low-smoke, non-toxic, has good processing performance, mechanical properties, and heat resistance.
Regarding claim 13, Inoue teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 12. As discussed above, the materials include a resin layer which may be any suitable flame-retardant composition (Paragraph [0015]).
Inoue is silent with respect to the resin comprising a polyolefin resin.
Qingdao teaches a flame-retardant polyethylene material which is halogen-free, low-smoke, non-toxic, has good processing performance, mechanical properties, and heat resistance (Paragraphs [0002]; [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the resins of Inoue from the flame-retardant polyethylene material, taught by Qingdao, which is halogen-free, low-smoke, non-toxic, has good processing performance, mechanical properties, and heat resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights