DETAILED ACTION
Terminal Disclaimer
Applicants’ Terminal Disclaimer submitted July 7, 2026, is noted and entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2004/0112093 to Beaufils in view of EP 0672803 to Kummermehr and US Pub. No. 2006/0281622 to Maricourt.
Regarding claims 2-15, Beaufils teaches glass fiber insulation products through the process of internal centrifugation combined with drawing by a gaseous current, to be used in the composition of thermal and/or acoustic insulation products (Beaufils, Abstract, paragraph 0001, claim 1). Beaufils teaches that the glass fibers have an average diameter of no greater than about 3.5 microns, followed by combining the fibers into an insulation product (Id., paragraph 0019). Beaufils teaches that a binder required to bond the fibers into a wool product is sprayed onto the fibers as they are drawn downward (Id., paragraph 0003). Note that the glass fiber insulation product is a single layer panel, as Beaufils does not recite multiple layers.
Beaufils teaches that the fibers formed are carried along by a gaseous drawing current towards a receiving mechanism generally consisting of a gas-permeable strip (Beaufils, paragraph 0003). Such a process of fiber collecting is substantially similar to Applicants’ manner of aligning the fibers and therefore, would appear to inherently result in such alignment. In support, Kummermehr teaches a similar insulating board comprising mineral wool bonded with a curable binding agent, where fibers are produced from a molten material and deposited on a reception means having the form of a production conveyor and continuously carries the fibers compiled into a layer of mineral wool and thus forming a mineral fiber web (Kummermehr, column 1 lines 1-19). Kummermehr teaches that as a result of such deposition, the large majority of fibers are deposited while having an orientation wherein their longitudinal extension is in parallel with the receiving surface (Id., column 1 lines 20-30). Therefore, Kummermehr establishes that collecting the fibers as set forth in Beaufils results in the fibers being aligned parallel with the receiving surface.
Additionally, Kummermehr teaches that the fibers should only be aligned essentially in parallel with a support surface, thus crossing the direction of the thermal flow and only minimally contributing to an increased thermal flow (Kummermehr, column 3 lines 27-41).
Therefore, even if the fibers are inherently aligned, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the glass insulation product of Beaufils, wherein the fibers are aligned as claimed, as taught by Kummermehr, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional glass fiber insulation product wherein the fibers are aligned to predictably minimize heat flow through the product.
Beaufils teaches that the fibers have an average diameter of no greater than about 3.5 microns. Beaufils does not appear to teach the claimed thermal conductivity and density. However, Maricourt teaches a mineral fibre-based product and a thermal and/or acoustic insulation product based on mineral fibers obtained by internal centrifugation (Maricourt, Abstract). Maricourt teaches that the fibers have a micronaire less than or equal to 18 l/min and a thermal conductivity of at most 35 mW/m∙K (Id., Abstract, paragraph 0038). Maricourt teaches an example where the density of the product is at least 40 kg/m3 and a micronaire per 5 grams of 3.5 (Id., paragraph 0063). Maricourt that the product may be used to manufacture panels with a binder content of around 10% and a thickness of about 80 mm (Id., paragraph 0038). Maricourt teaches that the fibers may comprise even smaller diameters (Id., paragraph 0100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the insulation product art at the time the invention was made to form the glass insulation product of the prior art combination, and adjusting, varying and optimizing the properties of the product, such as the thermal conductivity, density and thickness within the claimed ranges, as taught by Maricourt, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional glass insulation product having the desired properties known in the insulation art as being predictably suitable for insulation materials comprising glass fibers.
Regarding the claimed micronaire values, note that Applicants’ specification at page 2 line 22 to page 4 line 8 establishes a relationship between micronaire values and average diameters, wherein a micronaire value of about 12 l/min corresponds to an average diameter of 2.5 to 3 µm, and an 18 l/min value corresponds to an average diameter of about 4 to 5µm. Additionally, Applicants' specification teaches that Applicants' product has an average diameter of less than 2µm or even less than 1µm (Applicants' specification at page 5 lines 14-15). Additionally, at least Table 1 of Beaufils establishes fibers having a diameter of less than 1.0 microns. Based on Applicants' disclosure, an average diameter of no greater than about 3.5 microns and less than 18 l/min would appear to be within the ranges as claimed.
Alternatively, Beaufils establishes that that for a given density of a blanket, the finer the fibers, the greater the thermal resistance of the layer (Beaufils, paragraph 0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the thermal insulation art at the time the invention was made to form the thermal insulation material of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the fineness of the fiber thereby resulting in a micronaire value, such as within the claimed ranges, as suggested by Beaufils, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional thermal insulation material having the desired thermal resistance, and properties including thickness and density, based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 6, the insulation product of the prior art combination does not appear to require any unfiberized material.
Regarding claims 12, 13, and 15, the prior art combination teaches that a binder is required to bond the fibers, although the prior art combination teaches that a binder is not always required (Beaufils, paragraph 0018). The prior art combination teaches that an exemplary binder content is around 10%. Based on the combined teachings of the prior art It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the amount of binder initially present can predictably vary based on the desired cohesion, strength and bulkiness desired in the final product, such as values between 0% and around 10%. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the insulation art at the time the invention was made to form the glass insulation product of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the amount of binder, such as within the claimed ranges, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional thermal insulation material having the desired properties, such as strength and bulkiness, suitable for the intended application.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed July 7, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Beaufils is only able to produce fibers having an average fiber diameter of 2.1 µm and a micronaire of 13.4 or 13.5, and that the general statement regarding diameters of “less than 3.5 microns” is insufficient to enable the production of presently claimed fibers. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, Applicants’ specification at page 2 line 22 to page 4 line 8 establishes a relationship between micronaire values and average diameters, wherein a micronaire value of about 12 l/min corresponds to an average diameter of 2.5 to 3 µm, and an 18 l/min value corresponds to an average diameter of about 4 to 5µm. Additionally, at least Table 1 of Beaufils establishes fibers having a diameter of less than 1.0 microns. Based on Applicants' disclosure, an average diameter of no greater than about 3.5 microns and less than 18 l/min would appear to be within the ranges as claimed.
Alternatively, Beaufils establishes that that for a given density of a blanket, the finer the fibers, the greater the thermal resistance of the layer (Beaufils, paragraph 0013). Note that Maricourt teaches that insulation was known in the art as comprising fibers having a micronaire less than or equal to 18 l/min and a thermal conductivity of at most 35 mW/m∙K. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the thermal insulation art to form the thermal insulation material of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the fineness of the fiber thereby resulting in a micronaire value, such as within the claimed ranges, as suggested by Beaufils, based on the desired thermal resistance, and properties including thickness and density. Applicants have not provided evidence to the contrary.
Applicants argue that regarding the fiber alignment, fiber collection is not the only relevant step, as the run speed of the conveyor butted onto the receive belt is particularly important. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention does not require any product by process limitations. Therefore, Applicants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Additionally, Applicants do not provide any arguments relating to the run speed, such that the arguments necessarily distinguish the claimed invention from the invention of the prior art combination. Kummermehr teaches that the fibers should only be aligned essentially in parallel with a support surface, thus crossing the direction of the thermal flow and only minimally contributing to an increased thermal flow. Kummermehr establishes that collecting the fibers as set forth in Beaufils results in the fibers being aligned parallel with the receiving surface. Therefore, the prior art combination teaches that it was known to align the fibers as claimed. Applicants have not provided evidence to the contrary.
Additionally, although Applicants argue that Maricourt’s products are crimped, so that the fibers are generally oriented to the main surfaces of the products, and one of ordinary skill in the art simply could not arrive at the claimed features, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Maricourt is cited to support the finding that the thermal conductivity and density parameters disclosed in Maricourt are desirable for a conventional insulation board, and not for Maricourt’s process. Applicants do not provide arguments as to why it would not have been within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the density and thermal conductivity of the insulation product of the prior art combination.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights