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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-3 in the reply filed on 01/27/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2004/0142149 to Mollendorf et al. (hereinafter “Mollendorf”).
Mollendorf discloses a composite insulation material comprising: a hybrid insulation layer having a first surface and an opposed second surface, and made of a syntactic foam component, and a plurality of aerogel inserts embedded therein; a first laminate layer covering a first surface of the hybrid insulation layer; and a second laminate layer covering a second surface of the hybrid insulation layer (abstract, and paragraph 47). The first and second laminate layers can be the same or different, and can include a nylon/spandex laminating compound such as 78% nylon and 22% spandex (paragraph 47).
CA 3 015 904 is relied upon as evidence to establish a fact that Spandex, Lycra or Elastane comprises polyether-polyurea.
The nylon reads on the claimed polyamide while the spandex reads on the claimed polyether-polyurea.
The hybrid insulation layer comprises 85 vol% of aerogel inserts and 15 vol% of the syntactic foam component (figure 15). With the aerogel inserts comprising 85 vol% of the hybrid insulation layer, they dominate the volume and allows for more contact points between the aerogel inserts, facilitating an interconnected network structure. The syntactic foam component reads on the claimed reinforcement material. Additionally, the aerogel insert is in the form of an aerogel blanket fragment corresponding to the claimed reinforced aerogel composition comprising fiber reinforcements and an aerogel framework (paragraph 43).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollendorf as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 3,991,551 to Petree (hereinafter “Petree”).
Mollendorf discloses that the first and second laminate layers can be the same or different, and can include a nylon/spandex laminating compound such as 78% nylon and 22% spandex (paragraph 47). The nylon reads on the claimed polyamide while the spandex reads on the claimed polyether-polyurea
Mollendorf does not explicitly disclose the first and second laminate layers comprising 82% nylon and 18% polyether-polyurea.
Petree, however, discloses a fabric material made from a composite elastic yarn comprising 82% nylon or polyamide; and 18% lycra or polyether-polyurea (column 3, lines 40-45). As shown in figure 2, the stretch nylon ends 12 and 14 relatively loosely wind around the lycra yarn 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
130
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first and second laminate layers disclosed in Mollendorf including 82% nylon (polyamide) and 18% lycra (polyether-polyurea) disclosed in Petree, motivated by the desire to provide an excellent balance of mechanical strength, durability and flexibility.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollendorf as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2009/0029109 to Seth et al. (hereinafter “Seth”).
Mollendorf discloses that an adhesive material is provided to secure the hybrid insulation layer to the first or the second lamination layer. Mollendorf does not explicitly disclose the adhesive material that is a pressure sensitive adhesive material.
Seth, however, discloses an aerogel composite material 690 comprising a base layer 650 and a structured layer 600 bonded to the base layer (figure 8). Cavities 660 are bounded by the base layer, and span 670 of the structured layer passing through at least one crest 621 between adjacent bonded troughs 622 (paragraph 63). An aerogel material is included in the cavities. The aerogel material is an aerogel monolith or fiber reinforced aerogel monolith (paragraph 63). The structured layer is bonded to the base layer via an adhesive layer including a pressure sensitive adhesive, a hot melt adhesive and a curable adhesive (paragraph 84).
PNG
media_image2.png
176
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pressure sensitive adhesive disclosed in Seth to secure the hybrid insulation layer to the first or second laminate layer disclosed in Mollendorf because a pressure sensitive adhesive, a hot melt adhesive and a curable adhesive have been shown in the art to be recognized equivalent adhesive materials for the aerogel composite materials and the selection of these known equivalents to be used as adhesive materials for the aerogel composites materials will be within the level of the ordinary skill in the art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,103,209 (hereinafter “Patent ‘209”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are anticipated by those of the Patent ‘209.
As recited by claim 3, the first and second facing layers comprise elastic fibers including polyether-polyurea and nylon. The contents of the polyether-polyurea and the nylon are 18% and 82%, respectively as shown in examples 4 and 6.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,103,209 (hereinafter “Patent ‘209”) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Seth.
The Patent ‘209 discloses that the base layer is secured to the first or the second facing layer by a non-adhesive mechanism including stitching, sealing bags, rivets, buttons, clamps, wraps, braces or combinations thereof.
The Patent ‘209 does not explicitly disclose a pressure sensitive adhesive material provided to secure the base layer to the first or the second facing layer.
Seth, however, discloses an aerogel composite material 690 comprising a base layer 650 and a structured layer 600 bonded to the base layer (figure 8). Cavities 660 are bounded by the base layer, and span 670 of the structured layer passing through at least one crest 621 between adjacent bonded troughs 622 (paragraph 63). An aerogel material is included in the cavities. The aerogel material is an aerogel monolith or fiber reinforced aerogel monolith (paragraph 63). The structured layer is bonded to the base layer via an adhesive layer including a pressure sensitive adhesive, a hot melt adhesive and a curable adhesive (paragraph 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pressure sensitive adhesive disclosed in Seth to secure the base layer to the first or second facing layer of the Patent ‘209 because the pressure sensitive adhesive and the non-adhesive mechanism have been shown in the art to be recognized equivalent means of attachment for use with the aerogel composite materials and the selection of these known equivalents to be used as means of attachment for use with the aerogel composite materials will be within the level of the ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,145 (hereinafter “Patent ‘145”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are anticipated by those of the Patent ‘145.
The first and second facing layers comprise elastic fibers made of a combination of polyurethane and nylon as recited by claim 1. The contents of the polyether-polyurea and the nylon are 18% and 82%, respectively as shown in examples 4 and 6.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,145 (hereinafter “Patent ‘145”) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Seth.
The Patent ‘145 discloses that the base layer is secured to the first or the second facing layer by an adhesive material.
The Patent ‘145 does not explicitly disclose the adhesive material being a pressure sensitive adhesive material.
Seth, however, discloses an aerogel composite material 690 comprising a base layer 650 and a structured layer 600 bonded to the base layer (figure 8). Cavities 660 are bounded by the base layer, and span 670 of the structured layer passing through at least one crest 621 between adjacent bonded troughs 622 (paragraph 63). An aerogel material is included in the cavities. The aerogel material is an aerogel monolith or fiber reinforced aerogel monolith (paragraph 63). The structured layer is bonded to the base layer via an adhesive layer including a pressure sensitive adhesive, a hot melt adhesive and a curable adhesive (paragraph 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pressure sensitive adhesive disclosed in Seth to secure the base layer to the first or second facing layer of the Patent ‘145 because a pressure sensitive adhesive, a hot melt adhesive and a curable adhesive have been shown in the art to be recognized equivalent adhesive materials for the aerogel composite materials and the selection of these known equivalents to be used as adhesive materials for the aerogel composites materials will be within the level of the ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788