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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simon (US 2015/0055748 A1; November 27, 2014).
Regarding claim 1, Simon teaches a system comprising:
a neutron generator tube (Paragraph 2 – Neutron tube);
a gas replenisher (Paragraph 2 – Gas reservoir); and
a heat blanket applied to the neutron generator tube configured to insulate the gas replenisher (Paragraph 2 A neutron tube is a sealed envelope made of metal and insulators including a gas reservoir, an ion source, an accelerator column and a target.; Figure 1 Element 108).
Regarding claim 15, Simon teaches a method comprising:
disposing a neutron generator tube in a borehole, wherein the neutron generator tube (Paragraph 2 – Neutron tube) comprises a gas replenisher (Paragraph 2 – Gas reservoir); and
applying a heat blanket to the neutron generator tube, wherein the heat blanket is configured to insulate the gas replenisher (Paragraph 2 A neutron tube is a sealed envelope made of metal and insulators including a gas reservoir, an ion source, an accelerator column and a target.; Figure 1 Element 108).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-7, 10-13, 16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (US 2015/0055748 A1; February 26, 2015) in view Kakali (US 2022/0185983 A1; June 16, 2022).
Regarding claim 2, Simon teaches the system of claim 1. Simon does not explicitly teach wherein the heat blanket comprises an acrylic polymer-based elastomer.
However Kakali teaches wherein the heat blanket comprises an acrylic polymer-based elastomer.(Paragraph 14 - The polymer may be an elastomer. The polymer may be a rubber, e.g. a natural rubber. The reinforcing agent may comprise at least two (i.e. different) polymers. For example, the reinforcing agent may comprise poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) and sodium polyacrylate. )
Therefore, from the teaching of Kakali, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the mentioned limitation since it is a known lightweight material for thermal insulation.
Regarding claim 3, Simon in view of Kakali teaches the system of claim 2. Kakali further teaches wherein the acrylic polymer-based elastomer is cross-linked with mineral fillers to form a composite material (Paragraph 11 A gel network structure can comprise, for example: a covalently bonded (i.e. crosslinked) polymer network; Paragraph 13 - In some embodiments, the gel network former comprises (e.g. is) a clay mineral (i.e. a clay). It will be appreciated that clay minerals are hydrous phyllosilicates, typically hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates, which include, but are not limited to, the following mineral groups: kaolins (i.e. kaolinites),).
Regarding claim 4, Simon in view of Kakali teaches the system of claim 3. Kakali further teaches wherein the mineral fillers are utilized to strengthen structural integrity of acrylic polymer-based elastomer (Paragraph 14 - It will be appreciated that a reinforcing agent is a substance which reinforces (i.e. strengthens and supports) a gel network structure.)
Regarding claim 5, Simon in view of Kakali teaches the system of claim 3, but no specifically teach wherein length, height, and width of the mineral fillers are 0.01 nm-0.1 nm, 0.1 nm-10 nm, 10 nm-100 nm, 100 nm-1 mm.
However, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation in order to achieve the desired material properties since the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Regarding claim 6, Simon in view of Kakali teaches the system of claim 3. Kakali further teaches wherein the mineral fillers improve thermal conductivity, heat resistance, and thermal barrier capabilities of the acrylic polymer-based elastomer (Inherent – as these are properties inherent to the mineral filler material.).
Regarding claim 7, Simon in view of Kakali the system of claim 3. Kakali teaches specify heating the acrylic polymer-based elastomer to above 300 degrees Fahrenheit (Paragraph 269- The method may comprise heating the granular material (i.e. the granular expandable material) to a temperature no less than about 200° C.,)
However, Kakali does not specify heating the acrylic polymer-based elastomer to above 300 degrees Fahrenheit for 15 to 60 minutes.
However, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify time length of heating in order to achieve the desired material property of the elastomer since the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Regarding claim 10, Simon in view of Kakali teaches the system of claim 3. Kakali teaches wherein cross linking the acrylic polymer-based elastomer with the mineral fillers (Paragraph 11 A gel network structure can comprise, for example: a covalently bonded (i.e. crosslinked) polymer network; Paragraph 13 - In some embodiments, the gel network former comprises (e.g. is) a clay mineral (i.e. a clay). It will be appreciated that clay minerals are hydrous phyllosilicates, typically hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates, which include, but are not limited to, the following mineral groups: kaolins (i.e. kaolinites),).
Simon in view of Kakali fails to teach wherein cross linking the acrylic polymer-based elastomer with the mineral fillers yields a hardness of 30-95 of Shore A.
However since Simone in view of Kakali teach the material and the hardness is a material property that would be inherent to the same material, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Regarding claim 11, Simon in view of Kakali teaches the system of claim 3. Simon further teaches wherein the composite material is molded directly onto the neutron generator tube forming the heat blanket (Paragraph 2 A neutron tube is a sealed envelope made of metal and insulators including a gas reservoir, an ion source, an accelerator column and a target.; Figure 1 Element 108).
Regarding claim 12, Simon in view of Kakali teach the system of claim 3. Kakali further teaches wherein mineral fillers comprise, Talc, Silicates, montmorillonite, calcium carbonate, kaolin, clay, or a combination thereof (Paragraph 13 - In some embodiments, the gel network former comprises (e.g. is) a clay mineral (i.e. a clay). It will be appreciated that clay minerals are hydrous phyllosilicates, typically hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates, which include, but are not limited to, the following mineral groups: kaolins (i.e. kaolinites),)).
Regarding claim 13, Simon in view of Kakali teach the system of claim 12. Kakali further teaches wherein the mineral fillers is rubber. (Paragraph 17 -The polymer may be a rubber, e.g. a natural rubber.)
Simon in view of Kakali does not teach wherein dosage of the mineral fillers is between 100-300 parts per hundred rubber.
However, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify desired dosage of rubber in order to achieve the desired properties of the thermal insulation since the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 16, Simon teaches the method of claim 15. Simon does not explicitly teach wherein the heat blanket comprises an acrylic polymer-based elastomer and the acrylic polymer-based elastomer is cross-linked with mineral fillers to form a composite material.
Kakali teaches wherein the heat blanket comprises an acrylic polymer-based elastomer and the acrylic polymer-based elastomer is cross-linked with mineral fillers to form a composite material (Paragraph 11 A gel network structure can comprise, for example: a covalently bonded (i.e. crosslinked) polymer network; Paragraph 13 - In some embodiments, the gel network former comprises (e.g. is) a clay mineral (i.e. a clay). It will be appreciated that clay minerals are hydrous phyllosilicates, typically hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates, which include, but are not limited to, the following mineral groups: kaolins (i.e. kaolinites),).
Therefore, from the teaching of Kakali, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the mentioned limitation since it is a known lightweight material for thermal insulation.
Regarding claim 18, Simon in view of Kakali teaches the system of claim 3. Kakali teaches wherein cross linking the acrylic polymer-based elastomer with the mineral fillers (Paragraph 11 A gel network structure can comprise, for example: a covalently bonded (i.e. crosslinked) polymer network; Paragraph 13 - In some embodiments, the gel network former comprises (e.g. is) a clay mineral (i.e. a clay). It will be appreciated that clay minerals are hydrous phyllosilicates, typically hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates, which include, but are not limited to, the following mineral groups: kaolins (i.e. kaolinites),).
Simon in view of Kakali fails to teach wherein cross linking the acrylic polymer-based elastomer with the mineral fillers yields a hardness of 30-95 of Shore A.
However since Simone in view of Kakali teach the material and the hardness is a material property that would be inherent to the same material, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Regarding claim 19, Simon in view of Kakali teach the method of claim 16. Simon teaches further comprising molding the composite material directly onto the neutron generator tube forming the heat blanket (Paragraph 2 A neutron tube is a sealed envelope made of metal and insulators including a gas reservoir, an ion source, an accelerator column and a target.; Figure 1 Element 108).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (US 2015/0055748 A1; February 26, 2015) in view Kakali (US 2022/0185983 A1; June 16, 2022) in view of Lee (US 2002/0002221 A1; January 3, 2002).
Regarding claim 8, Simon in view of Kakali teaches the system of claim 7, but fails to teach wherein cross linking the acrylic polymer-based elastomer with the mineral fillers further comprises adding stabilizers, wherein the stabilizers comprise Phenolic based, Amine based, Heterocyclic based, and Phosphite based stabilizer fillers.
Lee teaches wherein cross linking the acrylic polymer-based elastomer with the mineral fillers further comprises adding stabilizers, wherein the stabilizers comprise Phenolic based, Amine based, Heterocyclic based, and Phosphite based stabilizer fillers (Paragraph 16 - the present invention relates to wire and cable insulation compositions which exhibit significantly improved performance under high temperature service conditions. The compositions of the invention are comprised of the ethylene-alkyl acrylate base polymer, a stabilizer package consisting of a zinc salt of a mercaptobenzimidazole combined with an aromatic secondary amine compound, a brominated flame retardant compound, antimony trioxide, a hydrated inorganic filler and a chemical crosslinking agent).
Therefore, from the teaching of Lee, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since it is a known additive in insulative materials to ensure retention of tensile and elongation properties (Lee, Paragraph 5).
Claims 9, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (US 2015/0055748 A1; February 26, 2015) in view Kakali (US 2022/0185983 A1; June 16, 2022) in view of Liu (CN112566290B; July 13, 2021).
Regarding claim 9, Simon in view of Kakali teaches the system of claim 7, but does not teach wherein cross linking the acrylic polymer-based elastomer with the mineral fillers further comprises adding metal stearate, diamine and/or organic peroxide.
Liu teaches cross linking the acrylic polymer-based elastomer with the mineral fillers further comprises adding metal stearate, diamine and/or organic peroxide (Paragraph 108 - Wherein, the acrylic acid derivative is preferably acrylamide, the strong base is selected from hydroxide, the crosslinking agent is selected from methylene bisacrylamide, the auxiliary crosslinking agent is selected from lauryl methacrylate or methacrylic acid, the catalyst is selected from tetramethyl ethylenediamine or sodium bisulfite, and the persulfate is selected from ammonium persulfate or potassium persulfate.).
Therefore, from the teaching of Liu, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since it a known catalyst additive in flexible electric heating film heating layer.
Regarding claim 17, Simon in view of Kakali teaches the method of claim 16, fails to further teach wherein cross linking the acrylic polymer-based elastomer with the mineral fillers further comprises adding metal stearate, diamine and/or organic peroxide.
Liu teaches wherein cross linking the acrylic polymer-based elastomer with the mineral fillers further comprises adding metal stearate, diamine and/or organic peroxide. (Paragraph 108 - Wherein, the acrylic acid derivative is preferably acrylamide, the strong base is selected from hydroxide, the crosslinking agent is selected from methylene bisacrylamide, the auxiliary crosslinking agent is selected from lauryl methacrylate or methacrylic acid, the catalyst is selected from tetramethyl ethylenediamine or sodium bisulfite, and the persulfate is selected from ammonium persulfate or potassium persulfate.).
Therefore, from the teaching of Liu, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since it a known catalyst additive in flexible electric heating film heating layer.
Regarding claim 20, Simon in view of Kakolin in view of Liu teaches the method of claim 17. Kakolin further teaches wherein mineral fillers comprise Talc, Silicates, montmorillonite. calcium carbonate, kaolin, clay, or a combination thereof and of the mineral fillers is rubber (Paragraph 13 - In some embodiments, the gel network former comprises (e.g. is) a clay mineral (i.e. a clay). It will be appreciated that clay minerals are hydrous phyllosilicates, typically hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates, which include, but are not limited to, the following mineral groups: kaolins (i.e. kaolinites),).
Simon in view of Kakolin in view of Liu do not teach and dosage of the mineral fillers is between 100-300 parts per hundred rubber.
However, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify desired dosage of rubber in order to achieve the desired properties of the thermal insulation since abovementioned limitation since the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (US 2015/0055748 A1; February 26, 2015) in view Kakali (US 2022/0185983 A1; June 16, 2022) in view of Robl (US 6,533,848 B1; March 18, 2003).
Regarding claim 14, Simon in view of Kakali teach the system of claim 3, but fail to teach wherein the mineral fillers comprise a surface area to volume ratio of at least 1*10^5 m2/m3.
Robl teaches wherein the mineral fillers comprise a surface area to volume ratio. (Column 9 Lines 50-60 - The filler material obtained using the method of this invention has proven to be a very high quality mineral filler for polymer application…Wherein the mineral fillers comprise a surface area to volume ratio)
Therefore, from the teaching of Robl, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the above-mentioned limitations since there is a known value to specifying the desired surface area to volume ratio for desired material design.
Simon in view of Kakali in view of Robl do not teach wherein the mineral fillers comprise a surface area to volume ratio of at least 1*10^5 m2/m3.
However, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-US 20150168593 A1 teaches a neutron generator with insulation.
-US 20140346338 A1 teaches a neutron generator with insulation.
-US 20150259469 A1 teaches an acrylic elastomer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISSELLE GUTIERREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/GISSELLE GUTIERREZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights