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 .
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 11 and 12 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 11 recites the limitation "the average fiber diameter of the second layer of oriented high temperature fibers" in lines 1-2 and "said average fiber diameter of the first layer of said oriented fibers" in lines 2-3. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the average fiber diameter of the second layer of oriented high temperature fibers" in lines 1-2 and "said average fiber diameter of the first layer of said oriented high temperature fibers" in lines 2-3. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-9, 13-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 2004/0087232) in view of Adams et al. (US 2014/0335750) and Schomburg (US 4,373,003).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a method of blocking heat flux from an exposure side to a shield side of a flexible polarizing heat barrier (par. 2) comprising:
a) providing said flexible polarizing heat barrier (102, see par. 51 and fig. 2) comprising:
said exposure side (fig. 2 – outside of shelter);
said shield side opposite the exposure side (fig. 2 – inside of shelter);
an insulating fabric layer (10/26/18) comprising high temperature fibers (par. 42 – “woven silica based cloth layer”; par. 44 – “fiberglass cloth layer”);
wherein the insulating fabric layer comprises a polarizing fabric layer (par. 38 – the insulating layer “polarizes” by keeping the heat on the outside and maintaining a cool temperature on the inside) that polarizes radiant energy as it passes through said first layer of oriented high temperature fibers (par. 37 – “non-emitting for thermal radiation”);
a coating (8) coupled to said insulating fabric layer and configured on said exposure side of the flexible polarizing heat barrier (par. 41) and comprising: a binder component (16);
b) subjecting the exposure side of the flexible polarizing heat barrier to a heat flux including radiant heat (par. 39, 40);
c) polarizing said radiant heat as it passes through the polarizing fabric layer to block said radiant heat from passing through the flexible polarizing heat barrier from said exposure side to said shield side (par. 23, 35 – “resistant to radiant…heat”; par. 39 – any radiant heat received is blocked by the insulation to maintain the exposure side at a high temperature and the shield side at a low temperature, interpreted to “polarize”).
Anderson does not disclose the high temperature fibers of the insulating fabric layer having a diameter of 5µm or less and having a melt temperature of at least 800°C or the polarizing fabric layer comprising a first layer of oriented high temperature fibers that are aligned parallel with each other to produce elongated gaps between said oriented high temperature fibers with an average spacing of less than 15µm.
However, Adams teaches a system for providing improved flexible-composite materials, equipment, and manufacturing processes including improved flexible composite materials that include scrim reinforcements (Abstract). In accordance with a preferred embodiment, the invention provides a laminate including scrim reinforcing elements therein, such reinforcing elements including at least two unidirectional tapes having mono filaments therein, all of such monofilaments lying in a parallel and predetermined direction within the tapes (par. 39), wherein such monofilaments have diameters less than 20µm and wherein spacing between individual monofilaments within an adjoining strengthening group of monofilaments is within a gap distance in the range between non-abutting monofilaments up to nine times the monofilament major diameter (par. 15, 16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the high temperature fibers of the insulating fabric layer of Anderson having a diameter of 20µm or less and the polarizing fabric layer comprising a first layer of oriented high temperature fibers that are aligned parallel with each other to produce elongated gaps between said oriented high temperature fibers with an average spacing of less than 15µm in order to obtain improved reinforced flexible-composite materials with fine-tuned directional control of rigidity/flexibility/elasticity properties, as taught by Adams (Abstract, par. 8, 9, 15, 16).
Anderson in view of Adams still does not explicitly disclose that the high temperature fibers have a diameter of 5µm or less and a melt temperature of at least 800°C. Anderson does disclose that the high temperature fibers are silica and fiberglass. Inherently, both silica and fiberglass fibers are known to have melt temperatures of at least 800°C (see Suntex – p. 6, ln. 10-13 and p. 9, ln. 11-13).
Further, Schomburg teaches a high temperature, flexible, insulating fabric (col. 1, ln. 15-16) comprising a woven silica fabric (col. 2, ln. 31-33) wherein the silica fibers have a diameter of 5µm or less (col. 3, ln. 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the high temperature fibers of the insulating fabric layer of Anderson to have a diameter of 5µm or less, as taught by Schomburg, since this was a known woven silica fabric for providing insulation.
Regarding claim 2, Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 1, and wherein the average spacing between said oriented fibers is greater than 0.4 µm (Adams - par. 15, 16).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 2, and wherein the average spacing between said oriented fibers is 10.0µm or less (Adams - par. 15, 16).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 2, and wherein the average spacing between said oriented fibers is 5.0µm or less (Adams - par. 15, 16).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 1, but not explicitly wherein polarizing fabric layer has a fiber density and elongated gap density measured orthogonally across the oriented fibers of 50/mm or more. But, it is noted that the fiber density and elongated gap density is a function of the fiber diameter and the average spacing of the fibers, which claim 1 requires to be 5µm or less and 15µm or less, respectively. Therefore, the fiber density and elongated gap density necessarily depends from the fiber diameter and the average spacing of the fibers. Since Anderson in view of Adams discloses a polarizing fabric layer having the claimed fiber diameter and average spacing between oriented fibers, it would have been further obvious to have a fiber density and elongated gap density of 50/mm or more.
Regarding claim 6, Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 1, but not explicitly wherein polarizing fabric layer has a fiber density and elongated gap density measured orthogonally across the oriented fibers of 200/mm or more. But, it is noted that the fiber density and elongated gap density is a function of the fiber diameter and the average spacing of the fibers, which claim 1 requires to be 5µm or less and 15µm or less, respectively. Therefore, the fiber density and elongated gap density necessarily depends from the fiber diameter and the average spacing of the fibers. Since Anderson in view of Adams discloses a polarizing fabric layer having the claimed fiber diameter and average spacing between oriented fibers, it would have been further obvious to have a fiber density and elongated gap density of 200/mm or more.
Regarding claim 7, Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 1, Adams further teaches wherein the oriented fibers further comprise a coating and wherein the coating forms said spacing between the oriented fibers (par. 39 – “one or more unidirectional fiber-reinforced layers each having thinly spread parallel fibers coated with adhesive”).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 1, wherein the polarizing fabric layer comprises a second layer of oriented high temperature fibers (Anderson discloses a “silica based cloth layer” and a “fiberglass cloth layer”, see par. 41 and 44, respectively) that are oriented and aligned parallel and have an average spacing between said oriented high temperature fibers of the second layer of oriented high temperature fibers of 10.0µm or less (in view of Adams as explained regarding claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 8, and Adams further teaches that, preferably, these unitape sheets are cut to size and layered in multiple orientations to form a preferred two directional fiber reinforced sheet (examples 0°/90°, +45°/-45°, +30°/-30°), or a preferred four directional fiber reinforced sheet (preferred examples 0°/90° 145°/-45°, 0°/90°/30°/-30°), or other preferred "custom" oriented fiber reinforced sheet with many orientations and layer combinations envisioned by Applicant (par. 67). The examiner notes that layers with orientations such as 0°/90° would be configured substantially orthogonally, within about 20 degrees or less of orthogonal, as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 8, and wherein the first layer of oriented high temperature fibers and second layer of oriented high temperature fibers are woven (par. 41).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 1, and wherein the insulating fabric layer comprises high temperature polymers having a melt temperature of 300°C or more, wherein the insulating fabric layer comprises polyimide. Adams teaches that preferred fabrics usable in the system preferably include Nylon, Polyester, UHPWPE (Spectra, Dyneema), para-Aramids (Kevlar, Nomex, Technora, Twaron), Liquid Crystal Polymer (Vectran), Polyimide, other synthetic polymers (PBO, PBI, PIBT, PBZT, PLA, PPTA), metal fiber, glass fiber or some combination of each (par. 61).
Regarding claim 16, Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 1, and wherein the first layer of said oriented high temperature fibers are inorganic fibers selected from the group consisting of: glass, fiberglass, silicon carbide and mullite, alumina, quartz (par. 41).
Regarding claim 17, Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 1, and further comprising a metal foil (20 see par. 44) coupled to said insulating fabric layer and configured on said shield side, opposite the exposure side of the flexible polarizing heat barrier (par. 44; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 17, and further wherein the foil comprises a first layer of foil (20) and second layer of foil (par. 37 – additional aluminum foil layers). Although Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg does not explicitly disclose wherein the first layer of foil has an emissivity that is at least 20% higher than an emissivity of said second layer of foil, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the first layer of foil to have an emissivity that is at least 20% higher than an emissivity of said second layer of foil since the second layer of foil is contained within the flexible heat barrier and heat transfer through radiation would be expected to be negligible relative to other mechanisms of heat transfer.
Regarding claim 21, Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the flexible polarizing heat barrier is part of a fire shelter (fig. 2).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg, and further in view of Bargo et al. (US 6,099,775).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 8, wherein the second layer of oriented high temperature fibers is located more proximal to the shield side (par. 44; fig. 1), Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg does not explicitly disclose wherein the average spacing between said oriented high temperature fibers of said second layer of oriented high temperature fibers is at least 20% greater than said average spacing between said oriented high temperature fibers of the first layer of said oriented fibers.
Bargo teaches a fiberglass insulation fabric (col. 1, ln. 11-13) comprising fibers having a diameter of 5 to 12 microns (col. 2, ln. 38-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the high temperature fibers of the fiberglass layer of Anderson to have a diameter of 5 to 12 microns, as taught by Bargo, since this was a known fiberglass fiber for use in insulation. Further, the examiner notes that Adams teaches an average spacing between oriented fibers that is based on the diameter of the fiber, as explained regarding claim 1. Therefore, since the fiber of the second layer of Anderson is at least 20% greater than the fiber of the first layer, the average spacing between said oriented high temperature fibers of said second layer of oriented high temperature fibers is at least 20% greater than said average spacing between said oriented high temperature fibers of the first layer of said oriented fibers.
Regarding claim 11, Anderson in view of Adams, Schomburg, and Bargo discloses the method described regarding claim 10, and Bargo teaches wherein the average fiber diameter of the second layer of oriented high temperature fibers is at least 20% larger than said average fiber diameter of the first layer of said oriented fibers (col. 2, ln. 38-40 – “5 to 12 microns”).
Regarding claim 12, Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 8, and Anderson in view of Adams, Schomburg, and Bargo discloses the method described regarding claims 10 and 11.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg, and further in view of Gleich et al. (US 2012/0196081).
Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg discloses the method described regarding claim 1, and further wherein it was known to include an intumescent component (par. 9, 11) and a gas barrier component (par. 37, 45) but not further comprising an opacifier component or that the intumescent component comprises expandable graphite.
Gleich teaches that additives and functional material can be applied at the same time with the new binder composition, e.g., as mixture or as individual components, or before or after the application of the binder composition (par. 61). The functional materials are preferably arranged on the side of the textile surface structure and can at least partially pass through the non-woven fabric (par. 64). The functional material is preferably flame proofing agents, materials for discharging electrostatic charges, materials for screening off electromagnetic rays, organic or inorganic pigments, especially colored pigments, materials that increase the resistance to wear and/or slippage, or decorative layers (par. 64 and 82). The inorganic flame proofing agents are typically hydroxides such as aluminum hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide, borates such as zinc borate, ammonium compounds such as ammonium sulfate, red phosphorus, antimony oxides such as antimony trioxide and antimony pentoxide and/or laminated silicates such as vermiculite (a gas barrier component, as claimed) (par. 68). In addition, preferred agents are expandable graphite (an intumescent component, as claimed) (par. 68). SiC and/or SiO₂ particles (an opacifier component, as claimed) are preferably used for an anti-slippage coating with a grain size of preferably 2-5 mm (par. 75). In as far as the functional layer should be an anti-slippage coating, it is advantageous if it or the basic particles are present entirely or at least partially worked into the textile surface structure and/or the B-stage binder composition (par. 77).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Anderson in view of Adams and Schomburg to further include an opacifier component and expandable graphite since these were known to add functionality (anti-slippage and fire protection) to a flexible heat barrier.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ortiz Teruel (US 2009/0194297), Wusk et al. (US 2017/0151749), Cooke et al. (US 4,996,099), and Tolbert et al. (US 5,091,243) all disclose flexible heat barriers having elements of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights