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 .
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/233,630, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Specifically, the second metalized material attached to a second woven or non-woven material. The support for the limitation is found in Provisional application 63/537,086, filed September 7, 2023. Claims 1-22 and 24-26 will be given an effectively filed date of September 7, 2023.
Claims 23, 27, and 28 contain limitations only found in the originally filed claims and will be given an effectively field date of September 9, 2024.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 23 does not have proper antecedent basis in the specification. Para 0026 or the originally filed disclosure teaches the aperture size can range from 0.01 mm to 10 mm, however, there is no mention of radius or diameter.
Claim 27 does not have proper antecedent basis in the specification as there is no mention of a cavity formed by the thermal management composite material.
Claim 28 does not have proper antecedent basis in the specification. There is no mention of the aperture per square inch.
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 1-28 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 term “ultra-low” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ultra-low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how low the thermally conductive the material needs to be in order to be considered “ultra-low thermally conductive material layer.” For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret “ultra-low thermally conductive material layer” as encompassing the layer being insulative or insulation layer.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the first and/or second metalized material provide a radiation reflectivity of 80% or greater.” However, how the radiation reflectivity is determine has not been defined nor what radiation wavelength are considered. The originally filed disclosure provide no details associated with the determination.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the woven or non-woven material is a para-aramid material.” It is unclear if the referenced woven or non-woven material refers to the first woven or non-woven material, the second woven or non-woven material, both the first woven or non-woven material and the second woven or non-woven material, or a different woven or non-woven material. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claim 4 as encompassing either the first woven or non-woven material and the second woven or non-woven material or a different woven or nonwoven material.
Similarly, claim 5 recite the limitation “wherein the woven or non-woven material is a carbon felt.” It is unclear if the referenced woven or non-woven material refers to the first woven or non-woven material, the second woven or non-woven material, both the first woven or non-woven material and the second woven or non-woven material, or a different woven or non-woven material. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claim 4 as encompassing either the first woven or non-woven material and the second woven or non-woven material or a different woven or nonwoven material.
Claim 6 recite the limitation “wherein an innermost layer of the thermal management composite material comprises the metalized material attached to the woven or non-woven material.” It is unclear if the referenced metalized material attached to the woven or non-woven material refers to the first metalized material attached to the first woven or non-woven material, the second metalized material attached to the second woven or non-woven material, or a different metalized material attached to a woven or non-woven material. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claim 4 as encompassing either the first woven or non-woven material and the second woven or non-woven material or a different woven or nonwoven material.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “the innermost side” and “the outermost side” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 1, upon which claim 8 depends, recites the limitation of an “outermost layer” but not an outermost side nor an innermost side. Claim 1 also has the outermost layer comprising a plurality of apertures and one or more of the plurality of apertures exposing the first metalized material.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein all or a portion of each of the layers are affixed or bonded to one another.” It is unclear which layers are being reference. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claim 9 as encompassing any two layer being affixed as claimed.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “high temperature thermal resistant plastic or rubber.” The term “high temperature” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how low the thermally conductive the material needs to be in order to be considered high temperature thermal resistant plastic or rubber. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claim 9 as encompassing a plastic or rubber having a degree of thermal resistance.
Claims 16-17 recites the limitation “tubelike formation.” It is unclear how close to a tube the formation needs to be in order to be considered “tubelike.”
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein two or more layers can be attached or bonded to one another by one or more of: a glue, lamination, stitching, staples, heat bonding, heat, and/or pressure bonding.” It is unclear to the layers are required to be bonded in the claimed composite material or merely capable of being bonded as recited. It is also unclear what layers are being referenced. Examiner would also like to note that claim 20 does not end with a period. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claim 20 as encompassing any two layer being bonded as claimed.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “the one or more inner layers” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis. There is no previous mention of one or more inner layers in the claim tree. Claim 27 also recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of apertures allow for one or more inner layers of the thermal management composite material to reflect radiant heat away from the one or more inner layer.” The originally filed disclosure teaches “[a]pertures can also allow for the reflectivity of the second layer to reflect radiant heat away from inner layers” (see para 0026 of the published application) and “perforations allow for both airflow, as well as reflection of radiant heat off of a second layer” (see para 0050). Based on these portions, the reflection is off the second layer, the metal, not the inner layers themselves. For the purpose of prior art application and compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret this feature being met if the claimed structure is present.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on rejected claim(s).
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, 6-9, 15-16, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2021/0214886 to Hussey.
Regarding claims 1-2, 6-9, 15-16, 20, and 22, Hussey teaches a textile (thermal management composite material) comprising a first substrate 110 that is a woven or nonwoven (first woven or nonwoven material), a second substrate 120 that is a metal layer disposed on the first substrate (first metalized material attached to the first woven or non-woven material, the outermost layer, or outermost side, comprises the first metalized material attached to the woven or non-woven material, claim 7,8), an insulation layer 130 (ultra-low thermally conductive material layer), and a second metal layer 150 (second metalized material) disposed on a third substrate 140 that is a woven or nonwoven (attached to a second woven or non-woven material, innermost layer, or innermost side, of the thermal management composite material comprises the metalized material attached to the woven or nonwoven material, claim 6, 8) (Hussey, abstract, para 0074-0075, Fig. 1B). Hussey teaches the substrate being moisture vapor permeable nonwoven fabric or woven fabric (Id., para 0171), reading on the substrates having a plurality of opening, or apertures. Examiner would like to note that Aperture is being given the broadest reasonable interpretation to mean “opening, hole” as defined by Merriam-Webster (Merriam-Webster, definition 1), which aligns with the instant disclosure teaching the use of apertures or opening (see para 0010 of instant application). Therefore a permeable layer would have openings to allow the moisture or vapor to pass through and read on the outermost layer of the composite material comprising a plurality of apertures. As the outermost layer, specifically the substrate, is moisture vapor permeable, the plurality of opening, or apertures, would expose the first metalized material. Hussey teaches the radiant barrier acting as an insulation against radiative heat loss and the fibre-based insulation material providing insulation against heat loss via conduction and convection (Hussey, para 0055), reading on the textile being a thermal management composite material.
Regarding claim 2, Hussey teaches the metal substrate being aluminum , such as aluminum (Hussey, para 0056, 0058, 0063-0065).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Hussey teaches the insulation layers can be combined with at least one substrate by lamination using an adhesive, high frequency weld, a melt film, a melt fiber between surfaces, and a stitching/needling process (Hussey, para 0148), reading on all or a portion of each of the layers being affixed or bonded to one another (claim 9) and two or more layer can be attached by glue (adhesive), lamination, stitching, and heat bonding (claim 20) .
Regarding claims 15-16 and 22, the limitations “wherein the thermal management composite material is capable of being rolled” (claim 15), “wherein the thermal management composite material is capable of being rolled widthwise making a long vertical tubelike formation”, and “wherein the thermal management composite material is capable of being formed into a shape of a covering for a tube, a covering for a hose, a covering for a conduit, and/or a covering for a duct” (clam 22). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Hussey teaches the textile or material being capable of molding to form a resilient flexible structure or shape (Hussey, para 0017-0019), therefore would be capable of being rolled, including rolled widthwise making a long vertical tubelike formation, and capable of being formed into a shape of a covering for a tube, hose, conduit, and/or duct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 3 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2021/0214886 to Hussey, as applied to claims 1-2, 6-9, 15-16, 20, and 22 above.
Regarding claim 3, Hussey teaches the metal layer reflecting infrared radiation and being formed of aluminum (Hussey, para 0088, 0056, 0074, 0064). Hussey does not quantify the radiation reflectivity. Although the prior art does not disclose radiation reflectivity being 80% or greater, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Hussey teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Hussey teaches a substantially similar structure as claimed, including the metal layer being aluminum and reflecting infrared radiation. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation “wherein the plurality of apertures allow for a one or more inner layers of the thermal management composite material to reflect radiant heat away from the one or more inner layers, a cavity formed by the thermal management composite material, or both” is associated with a property of the composite material in use. The property appears to be inherent to having the claimed structure with two metalized layer (see para 0026 of the published application). Absent evidence to the contrary, although the prior art does not disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Hussey teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Hussey teaches a textile (thermal management composite material) comprising a first substrate 110 that is a woven or nonwoven (first woven or nonwoven material), a second substrate 120 that is a metal layer disposed on the first substrate (first metalized material attached to the first woven or non-woven material, the outermost layer, or outermost side, comprises the first metalized material attached to the woven or non-woven material, claim 7,8), an insulation layer 130 (ultra-low thermally conductive material layer), and a second metal layer 150 (second metalized material) disposed on a third substrate 140 with the substrate being moisture vapor permeable and thereby having holes, or apertures. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 15-16, 20, 22, 24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2021/0214886 to Hussey, remaining as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, 15-16, 20, 22, and 27 above.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-9, 15-16, 20, 22, and 27, in the event it is shown that Hussey does not disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because Hussey discloses the claimed constituents and discloses that they may be used alternatively or in combination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to form the textile of Hussey, wherein the textile comprising a first substrate 110 that is a permeable woven or nonwoven, a second substrate 120 that is a metal layer, such as aluminum, disposed on the first substrate, an insulation layer 130, and a second metal layer 150 disposed on a third substrate 140 that is woven or nonwoven and wherein the layers are combined using an adhesive, high frequency weld, a melt film, a melt fiber between surfaces, and a stitching/needling process, motivated by the desire of using predictably suitable components taught by Hussey and by the desire to successfully practice the invention of Hussey based on the totality of the teachings of Hussey.
Regarding claim 24, Hussey does not explicitly teach the opening (plurality of aperture) being applied in a uniform pattern across the outermost layer. However, there are two option, uniform and non-uniform. As the openings are associated with the permeability, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the textile of Hussey, wherein the opening are uniform across the outermost layer, or substrate, in order to predictably impart a uniform permeability to the textile, absence evidence of the unexpected results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2021/0214886 to Hussey, as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, 15-16, 20, 22, 24, and 27 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0091111 to Schwarz.
Regarding claim 4, Hussey teaches the substate being a moisture permeable non-woven fabric or woven fabric, such as nylon, polyester, or polypropylene (Hussey, para 0171, 0173).
Hussey does not teach the substrate being a para-aramid material.
Schwarz teaches an adaptive camouflage comprising an air-permeable woven material, such as an aramid fiber including Kevlar (para aramid), that are high strength (Schwarz, abstract, para 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the substrate of Hussey using Kevlar aramid fibers of Schwarz, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known woven materials predictably suitable for use in camouflage and by the desire to choose fibers that are high strength.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2021/0214886 to Hussey, as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, 15-16, 20, 24, and 22 above, in view of "Advances and applications of chemical protective clothing system” to Bhuiyan.
Regarding claim 5, Hussey does not teach the woven or non-woven material being a carbon felt.
However, Bhuiyan teaches a chemical protective clothing system containing an air permeable activated carbon sorptive material, including an activated carbon-loaded nonwoven felt (carbon felt) to assist in removal of perspiration (Bhuiyan, abstract, p. 107). Bhuiyan also teaches permeable protective clothing embedded with activated carbon allows transmission of water vapor to maintain thermos-physiological comfort while providing protection against chemical hazards (Id., p. 127).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the textile of Hussey, wherein the textile comprises the activated carbon-loaded nonwoven felt of Bhuiyan, motivated by the desire to use conventionally known layers predictably suitable for use in protective clothing system and by the desire to assistant in removal of perspiration and/or to provide protection against chemical hazards.
Claims 10, 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2021/0214886 to Hussey, as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, 15-16, 20, 22, and 27 above, in view of USPN 3,349,396 to Reed.
Regarding claims 10, 17-19, and 21, Hussey teaches the textile having application in active zones or other military application for radiant masking (Hussey, para 0211).
Hussey does not explicitly teach the composite material being provided such that its length is greater than its width (claim 10) or in the form of a square, rectangle, triangle, or a cylinder (claim 21). Hussey also does not explicitly teach the material comprising a fastener to maintain vertical tubelike formation (claim 17).
However, Reed teaches a flexible radiation attenuator used to camouflage ground equipment (Reed, col. 1 lines 5-13). Reed teaches the flexible radiation attenuator (radiant masking) being provided as a blanket of radar attenuating material that is flexible and can be used to cover equipment or folded or rolled into a lightweight package (Id., col. 1 lines 31-36). Reed also teaches using individual sheets being provided with edge fasteners so that they can be assembled into a blanket of any selected size to cover metal equipment and provide radar attenuation (Id., col. 1 lines 54-65). Reed shows an embodiment wherein the sheet has a length that is greater than its width (claim 10) in the form of a rectangle (claim 21) (Id., Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 16-20, col. 3 line 70- col. 4 line 8). Reed teaches the fastener being snaps, Velcro strips, buttons, or slide fasteners (claim 18) (Id., col. 3 line 70- col. 4 line 8). Reed also teaches the modular blanket allows repair by replacing damage segments with an undamaged segment (Id., col. 3 lines 70-74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the textile of Hussey, wherein the material is in the rectangular sheets with fasteners on the edges as taught by Reed, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known shapes and structure for flexible radiation attenuator and allow assembly into blankets of any size while allowing for repair of damaged portion by replacement with an undamaged segment.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, the limitations “wherein the thermal management composite material comprises a fastener that upon being fastened maintains the vertical tubelike formation” (claim 17) and “wherein the fastener is capable of forming a thermally resistant seal that reduces thermal air exchange between an outside air temperature and an inside air temperature within the tubelike formation” (claim 19) are limitations with regards to the intended use of the composite material. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The material of the prior art combination would be capable of being rolled and secured into a vertical by the fasteners. As the material is thermally insulating the snap would secure the edges together, there would be a degree of thermal resistance that would reduce thermal air exchange between an outside air temperature and an inside air temperature within the tubelike formation.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2021/0214886 to Hussey, as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, 15-16, 20, 22, and 27 above, in view of USPN 4,287,243 to Nielsen.
Regarding claims 11-14, Hussey does not teach the composite material including a plurality of distance separated standoff spacer strips affixed to an outside layer of the composite material.
However, Nielsen teaches a mat for multispectral camouflage of object comprising a layer which is heat insulating and preferably also heat reflecting (Nielsen, abstract). Nielsen teaches the camouflage mat comprising liquid permeable web attached to a heat insulating material with metal particles or webs or foil increasing the reflection of radar waves with spacing ribs (standoff spacer strips) made of a heat insulating material that ensure a certain distance between the object camouflaging and the camouflage mat so that heat insulation increases and liquid that penetrates through can be drained off (Id., col. 2 line 35- col. 4 line 4). The spacing ribs read on a plurality of distance separated standoff spacers strips affixed to an outside layer of the composite material. Nielsen teaches the heat insulating layer formed of rubber (Id., col. 2 lines 64-col. 3 line 5), reading on the ribs (spacer strips) comprising a rubber and having a degree of thermal resistance (claim 12). Rubber has a degree of flexibility and therefore the ribs, or standoff spacer strips being flexible (claim 13). Nielsen shows the ribs being distance separated from one another and would be positioned widthwise (claim 14) (Id., Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the textile of Hussey, wherein the material further comprises the spacing ribs of Nielsen, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known structure predictably suitable for use in multispectral camouflage that are heat insulating and reflecting and by the desire to increase heat insulation as well as allow liquid that penetrates to drain.
Claims 23, 25-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2021/0214886 to Hussey, as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, 15-16, 20, 22, and 27 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0017785 to Morag.
Regarding claims 23, 25-26, and 28, Hussey teaches the textile being used to manufacture garments which reduce thermal signature of a body by 30% to 95% relative to the reduction provided by standard/conventional fatigues or garments having advantageous use in active zones or other military applications (Hussey, para 0211).
Hussey is does explicitly teach the openings having a diameter or radius of one or more of the plurality of aperture range in size from 0.01mm to 10 mm (claim 23), does not explicitly teach the plurality of apertures are applied in a varied formation across the outermost layer (claim 25), and the plurality of apertures function to alter a thermal signature of the thermal management composite material when the thermal management composite material is viewed through an infrared lenses or camera (claim 26).
However, Morag teaches a fabric having a first flexible fabric layer having fabric emissivity properties in a visible radiation range that are selected so as to mimic ambient emissivity properties of a deployment environment and at least one second flexible fabric layer which is configured to scatter long-wave radiation that is incident on the fabric and joined to the first flexible fabric layer (Morag, abstract, para 0017). Morag teaches the fiber being a multispectral camouflage fabric that may be sufficiently light and ventilated to be used in suits or other garment pieces as well as suitable for covering animals, vehicles, boats, aircraft, and stationary objects (Id., para 0042). Morag teaches the fabric layers may be perforated by a non-uniform pattern of perforations extending over part or all of the fabric to provide ventilation to the inside of the fabric, reduce the fabric weight, and/or blur long-wave radiation returned by the fabric to thermal and radar imaging devices (Id., para 0043), reading on plurality of apertures are applied in a varied formation across the outermost layer (claim 25). Morag teaches the fabric may reduce the difference in radiant emittance of infrared radiation measured by a thermal imaging system between the target and the background due to differences in respective temperature (Id., para 0044), reading on plurality of apertures function to alter a thermal signature of the thermal management composite material when the thermal management composite material is viewed through an infrared lenses or camera (claim 26). Morag teaches the perforations being in the range of 2-3 mm (Id., para 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the textile of Hussey, wherein the outer fabric is perforated by a non-uniform pattern of perforation with a width (diameter) of 2-3 mm as taught by Morag, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known fabric layers predictably suitable for use in fabric used in garment and by the desire to provide multispectral camouflage that is sufficiently light and ventilation that blurs long-wave radiation.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation “wherein the plurality of apertures allow for a one or more inner layers of the thermal management composite material to reflect radiant heat away from the one or more inner layers, a cavity formed by the thermal management composite material, or both” is associated with a property of the composite material in use. In the event that the opening size is associated with achieving the claimed property during use, although the prior art does not disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art combination since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art teaches a textile (thermal management composite material) comprising a first substrate 110 that is a woven or nonwoven (first woven or nonwoven material), a second substrate 120 that is a metal layer disposed on the first substrate (first metalized material attached to the first woven or non-woven material, the outermost layer, or outermost side, comprises the first metalized material attached to the woven or non-woven material, claim 7,8), an insulation layer 130 (ultra-low thermally conductive material layer), and a second metal layer 150 (second metalized material) disposed on a third substrate 140 with the substrate having perforation within the claimed range. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 28, the prior art combination teaches the perforation being spaced 7-25mm apart (Morag, para 0054), equating to about 1 to 13.2 perforation per square inch. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of about 5 to about 100 apertures per square inch, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that 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). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and vary the spacing of the perforation, or apertures, and therefore the apertures per square inch, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2012/0141719 to Payne teaches a multi-layer thermal insulation comprising two water vapor permeable outer layers encapsulating inner air and water vapor permeable layer 14 of insulation material and at least one inner separating layer 12 of an air-open fibrous material interleaved with the inner thermal insulation layer and teaches the or each of the inner water vapor permeable fibrous separating (convection barrier) layers having a low emissivity surface provided by a coating of a reflective, e.g. metallic substance such as aluminum deposited on one or both surfaces of the inner separating layer. US Pub. No. 2016/0331054 to Coza teaches a pore size in the range of 9-14 microns is more permeable to water vapor and slightly water permeable compared to pore size of approximately 1-2 microns and teaches that a mean pore size to 1 to 20 microns for the air-open fibrous material that is consistent with optimizing water vapor permeability and minimizing convectional heat loses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights