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 .
Claims 1-28 are canceled and claims 29-49 are pending for examination as provided with the preliminary amendment of January 24, 2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: (1) reference to specific claims should be removed from the specification (note 0005, for example). (2) “Fig. 1” should be discussed in the “Detailed Description”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 29-48 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.
Claim 29, as to “a glass foaming agent” and “and the appropriate fire resistance standard selected as a function of the building structure . . .” is confusing and indefinite as to what is intended. Is the foaming of the glass only required as to meeting the EN 1363-1 General requirements, and “the appropriate fire resistance standard” refers to something else, where it is unclear what this something else is? Or does the foaming of the glass required for the other standards as well? Furthermore, as to what the standards to be selected are, this is vague and indefinite as to the wide possible range and the subjective nature as to what is intended. For the purpose of examination, any of the listed materials in claim 34 are understood to meet the gas foaming agent requirement, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter. This confusion as to “appropriate fire resistance standard” also applies to claim 40.
Claim 47, it is unclear if all standards listed are to be used or selected from, or one or more can be used or selected from. For the purpose of examination, at least one standard would be used or selected from, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
The dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend and are therefore also rejected.
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 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 29-34 and 39-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/011403 (hereinafter ‘403) in view of Toas et al (US 2003/0040239), EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Weller, Jr (US 2006/0021148).
Claim 29, 31, 33, 34, 46: ‘403 provides a method of providing glass wool insulation, where the glass wool insulation is a sprayed layer of glass wool insulation (note claims 1, 2, 11, 0010, for example, 0018-0020, note presence of additional second mineral fibers not prevented). The sprayed layer comprises a collection of intermingled glass fibers in the form of glass wool, the glass wool being a structure formed from the intermingled glass fibers and air filled interstices between the intermingled fibers (note the intermingled structure 0006, with glass fibers, note 0018-0020, and from the structure as showN in in figure 2, 0050, understood to have the air filled interstices as claimed),with the glass fibers present in the glass wool insulation in a quantity of at least 70 wt% with respect to the insulation (note the first mineral wool fibers used can be glass fibers and present in an amount of at least 80 wt% of the total weight of the mixed insulation, note 018-0020, and further at the least it would have been obvious from the range amounts to optimize the amount of glass wool used, giving a value in the claimed range). An organic binder is also present in the sprayed layer in a quantity suggested to be of less than 12 wt% with respect to the glass fibers, where the organic binder is distributed within the glass wool structure and serving to retain the collection of intermingled glass fibers in the form of glass wool (note the binder can be organic, and present in amount of 3-10 wt% of the insulating product, for example note 0030, and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range relative to the amount of glass wool as well (and also the values in the range of claim 46), where it is indicated that the binder provides cohesion between the mineral wool fibers, note 0031, so understood to retain the fibers and to be distributed within the glass wool structure, and also understood to be distributed within the structure due to the simultaneously spraying giving the same application method for such features as claimed, note claims 1-2). The method includes introducing the glass fibers into an inlet of a spraying apparatus and simultaneously projecting the glass wool fibers, water and the organic binder from a spraying nozzle of the spraying apparatus towards a support surface so as to provide the sprayed layer of glass wool insulation to the support surface (note claims 1-2, 0039, 0030, 0042).
‘403 does not teach specifically providing that a fire-resistance enhancer as claimed (such as calcium carbonate, as in claims 31, 33, 34, understood to meet all claim requirements as to fire-resistance enhancer as the material indicted for use for options i) and ii)) in an amount of 1-15 wt% with respect to the glass fibers and distributed within the glass wool structure, that is projected with the glass wool fibers, water and binder from the spraying nozzle. ‘403 does note that the sprayed layer is desirably fire resistant (note 0042). The insulation is indicated as thermal insulation (note 0002).
Toas further describes that a thermal insulation product made with glass fibers can be provided (note 0019, 0023), and where the product also includes a binder, which can be an organic binder which helps to hold the fibers and IR absorbing material together, where the amount of binder can be 4-25 wt% of the insulation product (note 0025), and the structure is porous (thus understood to have air filled areas) (note 0024). It is further indicated that it is desirable to have IR absorbing material dispersed on fibers in the porous structure of the insulation, which reduces heat loss from the insulation (0012). The added IR absorbing material can be calcium carbonate (note 0020), and can be provided in an amount of 1-20 wt%, for example, of the product (note 0022). It is indicated that the calcium carbonate can be provided with/premixed with the binder and applied to the fibers of the insulation product (note 0027, 0028), further indicating that the binder would also be dispersed in the insulation product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘403 to further add calcium carbonate to the binder, such that the calcium carbonate will be sprayed from the spraying nozzle with the glass wool fibers and water to provide a desirable thermal resistant binder as suggested by Toas, since ‘403 indicates how glass wool insulation can be provided by spraying simultaneously binder, water and glass wool fibers, and Toas would further indicate for a similar glass fiber insulation, calcium carbonate can be added to binder to be dispersed in the fiber insulation to help reduce heat loss, and thus would suggest applying calcium carbonate along with binder, and so can be considered as part of the binder composition of ‘403 as premixed in. Further as to the amount of calcium carbonate, Toas suggests 1-20 wt%, indicating an amount to optimize from, and such optimizing would give a value in the claimed amount. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The calcium carbonate would meet the fire-resistance enhancer requirements of claims 29, 31, 33 and 34 since the same material used, even if not described by Toas as a fire-resistance enhancer. The calcium carbonate would be distributed within the glass wool structure since applied with the binder by the same process to provide such distribution, and as well, Taos wants such distribution (which would be indicated for the binder as well), and further indicates using the binder to retain the collection of fibers, and indicates using a porous structure, such that air would be present. Note Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Optionally, further using Weller, Weller would further evidence that calcium carbonate is a known flame/fire retardant to use with a glass fiber structure and can be used in amounts with binder (note 0050, 0022), and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would further expect that the calcium carbonate would provide fire resistance as well.
Claim 30: as to using calcium carbonate particles, Taos indicates calcium carbonate particles/powder can be used (note 0029).
Claim 32: It is expected that by following the process of simultaneously spraying the materials the calcium carbonate would be homogeneously distributed throughout the glass wool structure at the least, since all material is being applied at the same time, and this is the same process indicated to give such structure.
Claim 39: As to the insulation having the fire classification claimed, this is indicated to be provided by ‘403 (note 0032).
Claim 40: As to the fire resistance as claimed, this is indicated to be provided by ‘403 (note 0032).
Claim 41: In ‘403, the insulation density can be 60-70 kg/m3, in the claimed range (note 0038).
Claim 42: In ‘403, the insulation thickness can be 30-200 mm, for example, in the claimed range (note 0037).
Claim 43: In ‘403 the glass fibers can have a composition of > 55 wt% SiO2, combined quantity of CaO and MgO , < 20 wt%, combined quantity of Na2O and K2O > 8 wt %, < 10 wt% Al2O3, and an alkali/alkaline earth ratio >1 (note 0023), and it would have been obvious to optimize from these ranges, giving values in the claimed range (where Fe2O3 can be zero, since not listed as required).
Claim 44: In ‘403 the softening point of the glass fibers can be 650-700 degrees C, in the claimed range (note 0023), and since the softening point is determined it would been obvious to use known methods with International standards to determine the values so using ISO-7884-1 and ISO 7884-2 would have been obvious to provide desirable repeatable consistent values.
Claim 45: In ‘403 the insulation can have a lambda value measured at 10 degrees C of less than 38 mW/m.K, overlapping the claimed range (note 0033), and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value int eh claimed range.
Claim 47: In ‘403 it would indicate using standards from this list claimed (note 0032).
Claim 48: as discussed for claim 29, it would have been obvious to provide the calcium carbonate premixed with the organic binder, so it can be considered as being carried by the organic binder.
Claims 35-38 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘403 in view of Toas, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Weller as applied to claims 29-34 and 39-48 above, and further in view of Zheng et al (US 2012/0315458).
Claims 35-38: Further as to the insulation further comprising intumescent fire resistant component in the form of expandable graphite distributed within the glass wool structure in an amount in the range of 2-8 wt% with respect to the glass fibers,
Zheng further describes providing fiberglass insulation (note 0001), where it is indicated that it is desirable to provide flame retardant compositions with the insulation (note 0006), and notes combinations of flame retardant compositions can be used, including with expandable graphite (note 0006, 0007), where expandable graphite is described as helping provide structural integrity and/or thermal insulation to softening glass, and can interfere with flame propagation (note 0039), where the insulation can also include binder (note 0009), where the glass fibers can be blended with other fibers (note 0026) and the binder can be organic (note 0027) and the binder/retardant can also include calcium carbonate, which also can help provide flame/heat resistance (note 0029). It is indicated that the flame retardant materials and glass fiber can be mixed together in a slurry that is then deposited (note 0044-0045). It is indicated that the flame retardant materials can also be provided to binder and deposited as described above (note 0051).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘403 in view of Toas, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Weller to additionally apply expandable graphite with the calcium carbonate, binder, water and glass fibers to also distribute within the glass wool structure as claimed as suggested by Zheng to hep provide desirable structural integrity and/or thermal insulation to softening glass, since ‘403 in view of Toas, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Weller would suggest the simultaneous spray application of calcium carbonate, binder, water and glass fibers, and Zheng indicates that along with these same materials it is desirable to provide expandable graphite to glass fiber insulation, and by providing by the same application process as for the other materials, the desirable distribution of the material throughout would occur so the protection of all parts of the insulation provided. As to the amount of graphite to use, Zheng does not limit the amount, but since the material is desired to provide the specific protection features (note 0039), it would have been obvious to optimize the amount to provide such protection, giving a value in the claimed range.
As to claim 49: ‘403 in view of Toas, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Weller as discussed for claims 29 and 32 above, would suggest all features except the addition of the expandable graphite and the features for this, however, this would be suggested by Zheng as discussed for claims 35-38 above.
Loomis (US 4419256) notes the spray application of insulation with fibers and binder (adhesive) from a nozzle (note column 5, lines 35-55, column 3, lines 40-55).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights