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 .
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 6 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. It is not clear what the “mass-weighted median fiber length” is. It is not clear if this is a measure of weight or mass or a measure of length or a property with a specific measurement method. Clarification is required.
Claims 7 and 8 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. Claims 7 and 8 recited the first surface layer comprises a finer fraction of mineral fibers than the base layer. It is not clear if “finer fraction” means the mineral fibers are finer in size or diameter or alternatively if there are few mineral fibers in the surface layer and the surface is a mixture of mineral fibers and a secondary fiber. Clarification is required.
Claim 11 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. It is not clear what the process step of within the first 20% of the compression residence time. It is not clear how the compression amount is measured at a fraction of the residence time, i.e. 20%. It is not clear if the first and second compression are considered to be 100% residence time when combined such that the first residence time is associated with the first compression. Or alternatively if the percentage of residence time is a portion of the first or second compression steps. Clarification is required.
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 1-6, 9, 10, 13 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US2697056) in view of Rosenberg et al (WO 2011012712).
Schwartz is directed to a method of making a mat of glass fibers. Schwartz teaches primary fiber 16 and secondary fibers 28 (col. 3, lines 1-17). The fibers are glass fibers which are equated with mineral fibers as evidenced by Rosenberg which teaches mineral fibers are known to include glass fibers, ceramic fiber and stone fibers (page 6). The fibers are laid on the conveyer (see Fig. 1) and then a binder solution is sprayed onto the fibers which meets the claim limitation of mixing the binder with the mineral fibers. Then water jets supply water to the mat for the purpose of reducing electrostatic charge and colling the interior of the mat (col. 3, lines 44-85). Schwartz teaches the cooling water prevents the relatively hard and thick skin that occurs when the mat is too hot and makes it difficult for the mats to adhere. If the temperature of the mat is too low considering the amount of binder sprayed into the forming hood, the mats are not sufficiently sturdy to retain their shape (col. 4, lines 1-20).
Schwartz teaches the mats are stacked and pressed applied to them (col. 4, lines 21-32) to meet step (f)
Schwartz teaches the mats are uncured to provide adhesion for lamination and at lamination the mats are cured as per copending application serial no. 269,431 (col. 6, lines 5-22) per step (f).
Schwartz teaches the mats have final thickness of ¼” to 1” but can be made thicker to have a final thickness step (f).
Schwartz teaches water jets 34 as shown in Fig. 1 which are equated with water nozzles claimed.
Schwartz teaches the water is sprayed onto the upper side of the mat as claimed.
Schwartz differs and does not teach the amount of water spray added.
Schwartz teaches the amount of water is added to reduce electrostatic charging as well as to maintain the temperature of the mat to be low enough to reduce the skin and high enough to provide strength and shape retention.
As to claims 1-4 and 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the amount of water motivated to achieve the desired strength and reduce the skin.
Schwartz differs and does not teach the amount of fibers and binder in the mats.
Rosenberg is directed to a method for manufacturing mineral fibers containing element. Rosenberg teaches the amount of mineral fibers in the mat are usually 90-97% or from 91-95% and the amount of binder is 1-10% (page 6, lines 1-25). The amount of binder is chosen to obtain the desired cohesion, strength, cost and reaction to fire and thermal insulation value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the amount of mineral fibers and binder motivated to achieve the desired strength and fire and insulation value.
As to claim 5, Schwartz differs and does not teach the percentage of mineral fibers and binder.
Rosenberg teaches the amount of mineral fibers in the mat are usually 90-97% or from 91-95% and the amount of binder is 1-10% (page 6, lines 1-25). The amount of binder is chosen to obtain the desired cohesion, strength, cost and reaction to fire and thermal insulation value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the amount of mineral fibers and binder motivated to achieve the desired strength and fire and insulation value.
As to claims 9 and 10, Schwartz differs and does not teach the opposed heated compression elements.
Rosenberg teaches the mats are pressed in a press for pressing and curing and the press is suitable for pressing to a density of 120 kg/m3 to 1000 kg/mg3. The press is adapted to heat the element to cure the binder (page 19). The press provides for compression resistance and heat temperature sufficient to cure the element as claimed. A press would inherently have opposing elements to press the mat together in the center of the press.
As to claim 13, Schwartz differs and does not teach the claimed density.
Rosenberg teaches the mats are pressed in a press for pressing and curing and the press is suitable for pressing to a density of 120 kg/m3 to 1000 kg/mg3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a mineral fiber mat with the claimed density motivated to produce an insulation board with the desired properties for fire and thermal resistance.
As to claim 15, Schwartz in view of Rosenberg differs and does not measure the loss on ignition (LOI). As Schwartz in view of Rosenberg teach the same materials and structure and same amount of binder it is reasonable to presume that the LOI is inherent to the structure of Schwartz in view of Rosenberg. Rosenberg teaches the amount of binder is selected to achieve adhesion and fire resistance (page 6). When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a mineral fiber mat with the lower amount of binder motivated to achieve the lower loss on ignition to achieve fire ratings.
As to claims 16, Schwartz differs and does not teach the properties of initial bending strength nor the elastic modulus.
Rosenberg teaches the initial bending strength compared to density as shown in Fig. 3 is about 20 N/mm2 to 60 N/mm2 which overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce the claimed mineral fiber mat motivated to achieve the desired bending strength.
As to claim 17, Schwartz in view of Rosenberg differs and does not teach the elastic modulus. As Schwartz and Rosenberg teach the same materials and structure and same method of producing the mineral fiber mat it is reasonable to presume that the property is inherent to the combination. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a mineral fiber mat motivated to achieve the claimed elastic modulus.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US2697056) in view of Rosenberg et al (WO 2011012712) and in further view of Ueno et al (JP 2018095976).
As to claim 6, Schwartz teaches the fibers are all the same diameter (col. 3, lines 1-11) but differs and is not specific with regard to the diameter.
Rosenberg teaches the mineral fiber diameters are 3-20 microns, 5-10 microns (page 7, lines 1-5).
Schwartz in view of Rosenberg differ and do not teach the mass weighted median fiber length. As Rosenberg teaches the same diameter fibers which would dictate the weight of the fiber, it is reasonable to presume the mineral fiber mat is the same as claimed.
Ueno is directed to a glass fiber nonwoven fabric. Ueno teaches the nonwoven comprises long fibers and short fibers. Ueno teaches the short glass fibers have a mass average length of 0.3 to 1 mm, preferably 0.3 to 0.8 mm which is 300-800 microns and overlaps the claimed range. The short fibers provide excellent in dispersibility (page 4).
Ueno teaches the glass mat is used for insulating sheets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ fiber diameters and length of conventional mineral fibers for insulation mats motivated to improve the dispersibility of the short glass fibers.
Claims 7 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US2697056) in view of Rosenberg et al (WO 2011012712) and in further view of Hiers et al (US 4948649).
As to claims 7 and 8, Schwartz teaches multilayer insulation mats but does not teach there are finer fraction of mineral fiber in the surface layer than the base layer.
Hiers is directed to an integral textile composite fabric comprising a substrate portion and at least one organic textile fiber layer and an insulating portion. The insulating portion has at least one inorganic fiber layer which is substantially co-extensive with the organic fiber layer, and at least one insulating layer of insulating material which is substantially less than co-extensive with the inorganic fiber layer (ABST).
The inorganic fibers may be glass fibers, mineral fibers or vitreous fibers, but glass fibers are preferred, and, for sake of conciseness, hereafter only glass fibers will be, primarily, discussed (col. 8, lines 14-17).
The invention can best be understood by first considering the diagrammatic illustrations of FIGS. 1 and 2 of the drawings. Both FIGS. 1 and 2 show a composite fabric. From FIG. 1 it will be seen that the fabric 1 is composed of a substrate portion 2, which is composed of at least one organic textile fiber layer of needled textile organic fibers 3, and substrate portion 2 has an inner surface 4 and outer surface 5. The fabric 1 also has an insulating portion 6 which is composed of at least one inorganic fiber layer 6a, e.g. of glass fibers, and at least one insulating material layer 6b, e.g. of glass fibers, and that insulating portion 6 has an inner surface 8 and an outer surface 9.
The substrate layer on the surface is composed of organic fibers and therefore fewer or finer fraction of mineral fibers than the insulating (base) layer.
There can be a second substrate layer 12 also of organic fibers and meets the limitation of claim 8.
PNG
media_image1.png
218
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce an insulation material with a base or core layer in inorganic mineral fibers and surface layers of organic fibers motivated to produce an integral textile composite with an insulating portion in the center.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US2697056) in view of Rosenberg et al (WO 2011012712) and in further view of Coon et al (US 20050075030).
As to claims 11 and 12, Schwartz in view of Rosenberg differ and do not teach two steps of compression with different residence time and different final thickness.
Coon is directed to methods for enhancing one or more physical properties of wet-laid or dry-laid fiber mats, such as a glass fiber, cellulosic or polymeric fiber mats are disclosed and fiber mats made according to such processes. Certain embodiments of the methods involve vibrational compression of a wet-laid or dry-laid fiber mat. In some embodiments the methods produce a fiber mat having increased apparent density and/or tensile strength as compared to a mat that has not been vibrationally compressed (ABST).
Coon shows in FIG. 10 is a graph showing mat thickness of an embodiment of the disclosed mat after different time periods of vibration compression, in a first embodiment of the method a platen used for the compression was moved in an orbit having a diameter of 4.76 mm and, in a second embodiment of the method a platen was moved in an orbit having a diameter of 1.59 mm [0020].
Coon teaches the fiber mat compression methods may include a single vibration compression process, a double process wherein the mat goes through two vibration processes (or more) or is flipped over and processed a second time. Such methods may or may not include force compression as well [0074].
Coon teaches the example describes an apparatus useful for vibrational compression of a fiber mat such as a glass or polymeric fiber mat and further demonstrates that a pre-formed glass fiber mat can be rapidly compressed (for example, in less than about 30 seconds) to about 80% of its original thickness using two different vibrational compression protocols. That is, the density of the mat is increased such that the total thickness after vibrational compression is about 80% of the thickness prior to compression [0082].
80% is a compression of no more than 105% of the final thickness and in a compression (residence) time of 30 seconds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to compress the mat in a first and second compression step motivated to achieve the desired density and thickness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the compression and thickness motivated to achieve the desired final thickness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reese et al (US5051122) is directed to a method and apparatus for making mats of continuous glass fiber strands in which a heated calendaring roll and continuous belt are used to compact the mat, expel excess moisture, melt, and/or cure resin previously distributed throughout the glass strand. The resin may be deposited in the mat in the form of a powdered resin or as continuous thread of material that is combined with the remaining strands that form the mat as the glass strands are projected onto the surface of a moving conveyor to form the mat (ABST).
Reese teaches the fibers are deposited on the conveyor and water spray from nozzles applied at 0.024 gallons per hour to wet the underside of conveyor the powdered thermoset resins sprinkled on the surface in amount of 2-4%. 2-4% is within the claimed range (col. 10, lines 35-68).
Water is sprayed from nozzles onto the mats in amounts of 6-8% or (col. 6, lines 25-53).
Simmons et al (US5565049) is directed to methods of making chopped fibrous materials with glass fibers into a mat and a water mist applied in amounts of 1-8 gm/ft2 and solid binder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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 STEELE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
