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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 11-17 in the reply filed on 6/4/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the Examiner failed to show lack of unity of invention under 37 CFR 1.475(a)-(b). This is not found persuasive because evidence of lack of unity is shown in the combination of Hubbard et al. (US Patent Application No. 2021/0198527), Gan et al. (CN 212358662, see machine translated version) and Kotake et al. (US Patent Application No. 2017/0283269), wherein it is found to disclose the technical features in common between the groups. As such, the technical features in common of the claimed invention are not found to be special, since they do not define a contribution over the prior art. See rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard et al. (US Patent Application No. 2021/0198527) in view of Gan et al. (CN 212358662, see machine translated version) and Kotake et al. (US Patent Application No. 2017/0283269).
Regarding claim 11, Hubbard et al. teach an aerogel-modified (page 2, paragraph [0015]) polyurethane foam thermal insulation plate (page 1, paragraph [0012], page 2, paragraphs [0017], [0018]), comprising a polyurethane foam core (page 1, paragraph [0012], page 2, paragraphs [0017], [0018]) and at least one thermal insulation pack (page 1, paragraph [0012]), wherein the at least one thermal insulation pack is disposed inside of the polyurethane foam core (page 1, paragraph [0012], page 2, paragraphs [0017], [0018]), polyurethane foam wraps the at least one thermal insulation pack (page 1, paragraph [0012], page 2, paragraphs [0017], [0018]), the at least one thermal insulation pack comprises an outer shell formed by an enclosure of a barrier film having a gas barrier effect (page 1, paragraph [0012], page 2, paragraph [0014]).
Hubbard et al. do not disclose wherein a volume ratio of the at least one thermal insulation pack in the aerogel-modified polyurethane foam thermal insulation plate is 10%-90%. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in volume ratio involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the volume ratio of thermal insulation pack in Hubbard et al. in order to prevent the transfer of heat (Hubbard et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
Hubbard et al. fail to teach wherein the outer shell is filled with a thermal insulation material and at least one gas suction pack, the thermal insulation material comprises 1 wt%-60 wt% of an aerogel and 40 wt%-99wt% of an inorganic fiber; the at least one gas suction pack is filled with a metal oxide, the metal oxide comprises calcium oxide, a set amount of the at least one gas suction pack is determined according to an area of the at least one thermal insulation pack, and the at least one gas suction pack is controlled to be ≤ 5 g/m2. However, Gan et al. teach a board comprising a polyurethane foam (paragraph [0011]) and a thermal insulation core (pack) comprising an outer shell formed by an enclosure of a barrier film having a gas barrier effect (paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0031]), the outer shell is filled with a thermal insulation material (paragraphs [0025], [0029]) and at least one gas suction pack (paragraphs [0032], [0034]), the thermal insulation material comprises aerogel and an inorganic fiber (paragraph [0029]); the at least one gas suction pack is filled with a metal oxide, the metal oxide comprises calcium oxide (paragraphs [0032], [0034]).
Gan et al. do not disclose wherein the thermal insulation material comprises 1 wt%-60 wt% of an aerogel and 40 wt%-99 wt% of an inorganic fiber; and a set amount of the at least one thermal insulation pack, and the at least one gas suction pack is determined according to an area of the at least one thermal insulation pack, and the at least one gas suction pack is controlled to be ≤ 5 g/m2. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of aerogel, organic fiber and gas suction pack of Gan et al. in order to prevent shrinkage and collapse under internal vacuum conduction, prevent heat radiation and reduce heat conduction and stabilize the thermal conductivity (Gan et al., paragraphs [0028], [0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thermal insulation material and gas suction pack of Gan et al. in the plate of Hubbard et al. in order to prevent shrinkage and collapse under internal vacuum conduction, prevent heat radiation and reduce heat conduction and stabilize the thermal conductivity (Gan et al., paragraphs [0028], [0033]).
Hubbard et al. fail to teach wherein a heat conductivity coefficient of the at least one thermal insulation pack is 0.001 w/m.k-0.010 w/m.k. However, Kotake et al. teach an aerogel composite comprising aerogel (page 1, paragraphs [0010], [0011]) having a heat conductivity coefficient of 0.03 W/m·K or less which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 0.001 w/m.k-0.010 w/m.k (page 4, paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat conductivity coefficient of the thermal insulation pack of Hubbard et al. to that of Kotake et al. in order to provide a high performance thermal insulation material (Kotake et al., page 4, paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 13, Hubbard et al. teach wherein the polyurethane foam core is externally compounded with a decorative surface and the decorative surface is a film (page 2, paragraphs [0017], [0018], page 5, paragraph [0044]).
Hubbard et al. fail to teach wherein the aerogel, the inorganic fiber, and the gas suction pack in the outer shell of the at least one thermal insulation pack, and the outer shell is internally vacuumized and sealed to improve a thermal insulation effect. However, Gan et al. teach a board comprising a polyurethane foam (paragraph [0011]) and a thermal insulation core (pack) comprising an outer shell formed by an enclosure of a barrier film having a gas barrier effect (paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0031]), the outer shell is filled with a thermal insulation material (paragraphs [0025], [0029]) and at least one gas suction pack (paragraphs [0032], [0034]), the thermal insulation material comprises aerogel and an inorganic fiber (paragraph [0029]); the at least one gas suction pack is filled with a metal oxide, the metal oxide comprises calcium oxide (paragraphs [0032], [0034]), wherein the aerogel, the inorganic fiber, and the at least one gas suction pack are sealed in the outer shell of the at least one thermal insulation pack (paragraphs [0025], [0029], [0031], [0032], [0034], [0037]), and the outer shell is internally vacuumized and sealed to improve a thermal insulation effect (paragraphs [0037], [0038], [0040]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thermal insulation material and gas suction pack of Gan et al. in the plate of Hubbard et al. in order to prevent shrinkage and collapse under internal vacuum conduction, prevent heat radiation and reduce heat conduction and stabilize the thermal conductivity (Gan et al., paragraphs [0028], [0033]).
Regarding claim 14, Hubbard et al. teach wherein the aerogel is silica aerogel (page 2, paragraph [0015]) and the polyurethane foam core contains a flame retardant (page 2, paragraph [0020], page 3, paragraph [0028]).
Hubbard et al. fail to teach wherein the inorganic fiber is selected from one or a mixture of some of fiberglass, a basalt fiber, and a ceramic fiber. However, Gan et al. teach a board comprising a polyurethane foam (paragraph [0011]) and a thermal insulation core (pack) comprising an outer shell formed by an enclosure of a barrier film having a gas barrier effect (paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0031]), the outer shell is filled with a thermal insulation material (paragraphs [0025], [0029]) and at least one gas suction pack (paragraphs [0032], [0034]), the thermal insulation material comprises aerogel and an inorganic fiber (paragraph [0029]); the at least one gas suction pack is filled with a metal oxide, the metal oxide comprises calcium oxide (paragraphs [0032], [0034]), wherein the inorganic fiber is selected from glass fiber and a ceramic fiber (paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thermal insulation material of Gan et al. in the plate of Hubbard et al. in order to prevent shrinkage and collapse under internal vacuum conduction, prevent heat radiation and reduce heat conduction (Gan et al., paragraph [0028]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard et al. (US Patent Application No. 2021/0198527) in view of Gan et al. (CN 212358662, see machine translated version) and Kotake et al. (US Patent Application No. 2017/0283269), in further view of Li et al. (CN 106945362, see machine translated version).
Hubbard et al., Gan et al., and Kotake et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 12, Hubbard et al. fail to teach wherein the barrier film is an aluminum foil composite film, a fiberglass cloth/AL/PET/CPE composite film, or a fiberglass cloth/AL/PET/NY/CPE composite film and the outer pack body is filled with the metal oxide. However, Gan et al. teach a board comprising a polyurethane foam (paragraph [0011]) and a thermal insulation core (pack) comprising an outer shell formed by an enclosure of a barrier film having a gas barrier effect (paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0031]), the outer shell is filled with a thermal insulation material (paragraphs [0025], [0029]) and at least one gas suction pack (paragraphs [0032], [0034]), the thermal insulation material comprises aerogel and an inorganic fiber (paragraph [0029]); the at least one gas suction pack is filled with a metal oxide, the metal oxide comprises calcium oxide (paragraphs [0032], [0034]), wherein the barrier film is an aluminum foil composite film (paragraph [0027]) and the outer pack body is filled with the metal oxide (paragraphs [0034], [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thermal insulation material and gas suction pack of Gan et al. in the plate of Hubbard et al. in order to prevent shrinkage and collapse under internal vacuum conduction, prevent heat radiation and reduce heat conduction and stabilize the thermal conductivity (Gan et al., paragraphs [0028], [0033]).
Hubbard et al. fail to teach wherein an outer pack of the at least one gas suction pack is made of a material having waterproof and breathable properties, a high density polyethylene material, or Tyvek Dupont paper; and the metal oxide further comprises copper oxide and cerium oxide. However, Li et al. teach an aerogel thermal insulation material (paragraph [0002]) comprising a waterproof and breathable membrane (paragraph [0002]) and copper oxide and cerium oxide (paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the waterproof and breathable membrane and copper oxide and cerium oxide of Li et al. as the outer pack body of the gas suction pack of Hubbard et al. in order to provide a thermal insulation material with waterproof and breathable functions (Li et al., paragraph [0002]).
Hubbard et al., Gan et al. and Li et al. do not disclose wherein a mass percentage of the calcium oxide in the metal oxide is 98%-99%, a balance of copper oxide and/or the cerium oxide. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of calcium oxide and copper oxide and/or cerium oxide of Hubbard et al., as modified by Gan et al. and Li et al., in order to provide a thermal insulation material with waterproof and breathable functions (Li et al., paragraph [0002]).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard et al. (US Patent Application No. 2021/0198527) in view of Gan et al. (CN 212358662, see machine translated version) and Kotake et al. (US Patent Application No. 2017/0283269), in further view of Zheng et al. (US Patent Application No. 2020/0217068).
Hubbard et al., Gan et al. and Kotake et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 15, Hubbard et al. fail to teach wherein the thermal insulation material further comprises a black material, and the black material is one or a mixture of some of carbon black, ferric oxide, and trititanium pentoxide; a specific surface area of the black material is 10 m2/g-360 m2/g; mass ratio of the black material in the thermal insulation material is 0%-10%; and an average particle size of the black material is ≤ 10 um. However, Zheng et al. teach an aerogel modified polyurethane foam thermal insulation plate (page 1, paragraph [0003], page 2, paragraphs [0028], [0029]) comprising a polyurethane foam core and at least one thermal insulation pack (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], page 2, paragraph [0029]), wherein the at least one thermal insulation pack is disposed inside of the polyurethane foam core (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], page 2, paragraph [0029]), a volume ratio of the at least one thermal insulation pack in the aerogel modified polyurethane foam thermal insulation plate is between 10 and 90 percent (page 1, paragraph [0004]); the at least one thermal insulation pack comprises an outer shell formed by an enclosure of a barrier film having a barrier effect (page 1, paragraph [0006]), the outer shell is filled with a thermal insulation material (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], page 2, paragraph [0029]), wherein the thermal insulation material further comprises a black material (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004]), and the black material is carbon black (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004]); a specific surface area of the black material is between 10 m2/g and 400 m2/g (page 3, paragraph [0038]); mass ratio of the black material in the thermal insulation material is between 1 and 10 weight percent (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004]); and an average particle size of the black material is less than or equal to 10 µm (page 3, paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the black material of Zheng et al. in the thermal insulation material of Hubbard et al. in order to provide a radiant barrier by impeding and minimizing heat transfer due to thermal radiation (Zheng et al., page 3, paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 16, Hubbard et al. teach wherein the at least one thermal insulation pack is in a shape of a cube (Figs. 1-3).
Hubbard et al. fail to teach wherein the thermal insulation material further comprises expanded perlite, precipitated silica, calcium carbonate, talcum powder, or magnesium hydroxide. However, Zheng et al. teach an aerogel modified polyurethane foam thermal insulation plate (page 1, paragraph [0003], page 2, paragraphs [0028], [0029]) comprising a polyurethane foam core and at least one thermal insulation pack (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], page 2, paragraph [0029]), wherein the at least one thermal insulation pack is disposed inside of the polyurethane foam core (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], page 2, paragraph [0029]), a volume ratio of the at least one thermal insulation pack in the aerogel modified polyurethane foam thermal insulation plate is between 10 and 90 percent (page 1, paragraph [0004]); the at least one thermal insulation pack comprises an outer shell formed by an enclosure of a barrier film having a barrier effect (page 1, paragraph [0006]), the outer shell is filled with a thermal insulation material (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], page 2, paragraph [0029]), wherein the thermal insulation material further comprises expanded perlite, precipitated silica, calcium carbonate, talc, or mag hydroxide (page 4, paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the expanded perlite, precipitated silica, calcium carbonate, talc, or mag hydroxide of Zheng et al. in the thermal insulation material of Hubbard et al. in order to provide advantageous properties such as lower manufacturing costs and the like (Zheng et al., page 4, paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 17, Hubbard et al. teach wherein the aerogel modified polyurethane foam thermal insulation plate has a thickness from about 0.25 inch to about 12 inches (page 2, paragraph [0013]).
Hubbard et al. do not disclose wherein the at least one thermal insulation pack has a thickness of 0.49 cm-0.98 cm. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in thickness involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the thickness of the thermal insulation pack of Hubbard et al. in order to prevent the transfer of heat (Hubbard et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
Hubbard et al. fail to teach wherein the aerogel modified polyurethane foam thermal insulation plate has a heat conductivity coefficient of ≤ 0.015 w/m.k. However, Kotake et al. teach an aerogel composite comprising aerogel (page 1, paragraphs [0010], [0011]) having a heat conductivity coefficient of 0.03 W/m·K or less which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of ≤ 0.015 w/m.k (page 4, paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat conductivity coefficient of the thermal insulation pack of Hubbard et al. to that of Kotake et al. in order to provide a high performance thermal insulation material (Kotake et al., page 4, paragraph [0052]).
Hubbard et al. fail to teach wherein the aerogel modified polyurethane foam thermal insulation plate has a flame spread index of ≤ 30, and the aerogel modified polyurethane foam thermal insulation plate has a smoke index of ≤ 300. However, Zheng et al. teach an aerogel modified polyurethane foam thermal insulation plate (page 1, paragraph [0003], page 2, paragraphs [0028], [0029]) comprising a polyurethane foam core and at least one thermal insulation pack (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], page 2, paragraph [0029]), wherein the at least one thermal insulation pack is disposed inside of the polyurethane foam core (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], page 2, paragraph [0029]), a volume ratio of the at least one thermal insulation pack in the aerogel modified polyurethane foam thermal insulation plate is between 10 and 90 percent (page 1, paragraph [0004]); the at least one thermal insulation pack comprises an outer shell formed by an enclosure of a barrier film having a barrier effect (page 1, paragraph [0006]), the outer shell is filled with a thermal insulation material (page 1, paragraphs [0003], [0004], page 2, paragraph [0029]), wherein the aerogel modified polyurethane foam thermal insulation plate has a flame spread index of at most 30 (page 1, paragraph [0003], page 6, paragraph [0061]), and the aerogel modified polyurethane foam thermal insulation plate has a smoke index of at most 300 (page 1, paragraph [0003], page 6, paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flame spread index and the smoke index of Hubbard et al. to that of Zheng et al. in order to regulate flame spread and smoke development (Zheng et al., page 3, paragraph [0003], page 6, paragraph [0061]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 7/8/2026
Prosecution Insights