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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, 1,2, 8, 10, 12, 14, 19, 28, 31, 33, 37, 44 and 101-108 claims in the reply filed on 08/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/07/2025 and 08/17/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
EXAMINER’S NOTE
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 101 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
(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 1-2, 8 and 101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (CN 210462177 U), herein Xu.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (CN 210462177 U). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a vacuum insulation board [lines 13-14, 42-43]. The board comprises one or more internal cells separated by a framework [lines 49-54, Fig. 1-2]. The cores comprises cotton fibers [lines 60-62]. The core is enveloped in a vacuum film package [lines 142-150, Fig. 2].
It is noted that applicant teaches that a foam core can be formed of blends of different types of fiber materials [Instant Spec, 0007, 0009].
Regarding claims 2 and 101, Xu further teaches the core is enveloped in 2 layers on the top and on the bottom of the cells (i.e., the base and cap layers) [lines 142-150, Figs.1- 2].
Regarding claim 8, Xu further teaches a framework is present between the upper and lower cells of the core [lines 49-52, 100-109, claim 1, Figs. 1-2]
Claims 1, 2 14, 19, 37, 44 and 101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (Development and performance evaluation of wood-pulp/glass fibre hybrid composites as core materials for vacuum insulation panels), herein Zhao.
Regarding claims 1 and 44, Zhao teaches a vacuum insulation panel [Abstract]. The panel comprises one internal cell [Abstract, Fig. 1, Sec 2]. The core comprises wood pulp fibers [Abstract, Sec. 2]. The core is enveloped in a vacuum film envelope [Sec 2.2 , Fig. 1].
It is noted that applicant teaches that a foam core can be formed of blends of different types of fiber materials [Instant Spec, 0007, 0009].
Regarding claims 2 and 101, Zhao further teaches the core is enveloped in 2 layers on the top and on the bottom of the core (i.e., the base and cap layers) Sec. 2.2, Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 14, Zhao further teaches the wood fiber derived via a chemical route [Sec. 2.2]. Thus, at least some lignin is expected to be compromised.
Regarding claim 19, Zhao further teaches the wood fiber derived via a chemical route [Sec. 2.2]. Thus, at least some lignin is expected to be removed.
Regarding claim 37, Zhao further teaches the wood fiber derived via a chemical route and dispersed with treated glass fibers in a slurry to make the core [Sec. 2.2]. Thus, at least some residual surfactant is expected in the core.
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.
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 1-2, 101, 104 and 108 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (JP 2007239771 A) [IDS dated 02/07/2025], herein Hayashi.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (JP 2007239771 A). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches a vacuum insulated panel [lines 13-18]. The panel comprises at least one cell which comprises a core made of organic fibers such as plant-derived fibers [lines 126-132, 262-265]. The core is enveloped in gas barrier film used to seal the panel under vacuum [lines 129-136, 237-240].
Hayashi differs from claim 1 by teaching plant fibers in a list of possible fibers, such that it cannot be said that the plant fibers species is anticipated.
However, it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed any of the protective layers taught by Hayashi, including plant fibers. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claims 2 and 101, Hayashi further teaches the enveloping structure comprises a base and cap layer of plastic film [lines 140-149].
Regarding claims 104, Hayashi further teaches the enveloping structure comprises a base and cap layer of plastic film around the core and that is enveloped by the gas barrier film [lines 140-149, 237-240, 274-281].
Regarding claims 108, Hayashi further teaches the fiber core is mixed with an inorganic powder [lines 252-259]. Hayashi does not expressly teach the diameter of the powder particles.
Hayashi discloses the claimed invention except for the powder particles being nanoparticles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used nanoparticles, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (JP 2007239771 A) [IDS dated 02/07/2025], herein Hayashi, as applied to claims 1 and 101 above, and further in view of Latsuzbaya et al. (Improving the thermal properties of aircraft cabin interiors with the integration of vacuum insulation panels), herein Latsuzbaya.
Regarding claims 8 and 105, Hayashi does not expressly teach that a frame is disposed within the enveloping structure.
Latsuzbaya teaches vacuum insulation panels for aircraft [Abstract].
Latsuzbaya teaches that in order to improve the VIP and better protect the core a honeycomb is added into the VIP and the cells are filled with the core insulation material [Pg. 711-712, Fig. 12].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added a honeycomb to the core of Hayashi as taught by Latsuzbaya. One would have been motivated to do so to better protect the core and add strength to the panel.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (JP 2007239771 A) [IDS dated 02/07/2025], herein Hayashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 113321447 A), herein Liu.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (CN 113321447 A). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 28, Hayashi teaches the fibers of the core are combined with a binder [lines 267-270].
Hayashi does not teach the binder is epoxy.
Liu teaches a vacuum insulation panel comprising a core comprising a fibrous filler and a binder [lines 13-19, 109-114, 166-170]. Liu further teaches the binder is an epoxy [lines 148-150].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the epoxy binder of Liu as the binder of Hayashi. One would have been motivated to do so as Liu teaches that epoxy binders are conventionally known binders for use in VIP and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, the motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 106 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (Development and performance evaluation of wood-pulp/glass fibre hybrid composites as core materials for vacuum insulation panels), herein Zhao, as applied to claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 106, Zhao further teaches the wood fiber derived via a chemical route [Sec. 2.2]. Zhao doesn’t teach the chemical process expressly. Fiber processed by the Kraft process is expected to have a salt of an alkaline chemical present in the cellulose structure of the fiber.
However, it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed any chemical process for wood fibers taught by Zhao, including one having a salt of an alkaline chemical present in the cellulose structure of the fiber . The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 1-2, 8, 12, 44, 101-102 and 103-105 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US 20120132659 A1) [IDS dated 02/07/2025] in view of Boucke et al. (WO 2021140242 A1) [IDS dated 02/07/2025], herein Boucke.
Regarding claims 1-2, 8, 12, 44, 101 and 104-105, Hwang teaches a vacuum insulation member [Abstract]. The member comprises multiple cells with filler forming a divided core framed by the ribs [Abstract, claim 1, Figs. 2-3, 6-7, 0079, 0087-0089]. The member has a body/base and cover/cap layer that envelop the core comprising the cells framed by ribs which are further sealed by a barrier layer and placed under vacuum [0016-0017, 0021, 0054-0055, 0057, 0079, 0087-0088].
Hwang does not teach that the filler is a foam comprising a plant material.
Boucke teaches insulated panels comprising foam cores [Abstract]. Boucke teaches the foam comprises wood [Abstract, Pg. 2 lines 10-15]. Boucke teaches the wood foam offers high fire resistance, excellent sound insulation and good heat insulation while being lightweight [Pg. 2 lines 18-22].
It would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the wood foam of Boucke as the filler material of Hwang. One would have been motivated to do so based on the heat and sound insulation afforded by the foam as well as the fire resistance and reduced weight. Additionally, the wood foam would be a greener product.
Regarding claim 12, Hwang does not teach that the ribs comprise densified, lignin-compromised piece of wood.
Boucke teaches that densified, lignin-compromised wood is lightweight and has excellent mechanical properties [Pgs. 5-6].
It would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the densified, lignin-compromised wood of Boucke as the rib material of Hwang. One would have been motivated to do so based on the excellent mechanical properties and weight savings afforded by the wood.
Regarding claim 102, Hwang further teaches wherein each cell comprises a recess formed by respective protruding portions of the base layer [0054-0055, 0066, Figs.6-7] .
Regarding claim 103, Hwang does not teach wherein the cap layer comprises a densified, lignin-compromised piece of wood.
Boucke teaches a densified, lignin-compromised wood cover layer. Boucke teaches that densified, lignin-compromised wood is lightweight and has excellent mechanical properties [Pgs. 5-6].
It would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the densified, lignin-compromised wood of Boucke as the cover/cap layer of Hwang. One would have been motivated to do so based on the excellent mechanical properties and weight savings afforded by the wood.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31, 33 and 107 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
