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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-3, 6, 9-19, 23-24, and 26-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 12, 16-20, 22-24, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,460,764 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the instant claims and the reference claims are rendered obvious by the reference patent as stated below.
The instant claim 2 is taught by the reference claims 1-2, 4-5, 16-20, 22-24, and 28 except that the reference claims do not state the fibrous materials form a nonwoven web, does not state that the barriers are adhered to the insulating layer by polyvinyl acetate, does not state that the insulating layer and barrier layers are flexible, and does not state that the insulation liner is recyclable. However, these limitations are rendered obvious by the reference patent which teaches that the fibrous material form a nonwoven web, teaches the barriers are adhered (bonded) to the insulating layer by polyvinyl acetate (US 12460764, Col. 1 Line 55 – Col. 3 Line 21), teaches that the layers are flexible (US 12460764, Col. 1 Line 55 – Col. 2 Line 20), and teaches that the liner is recyclable (US 12460764, Col. 1 Lines 62-63).
The instant claim 3 is taught by the reference claims 16-18, except that the reference claims do not state a thickness of the flexible insulating layer is about 1.2 cm to about 20 cm. However, this is rendered obvious by the reference patent which teaches that the insulating layer has a thickness of about 1.2 to about 20 cm (US 12460764, Col. 45 Line 55 – Col. 6 Line 4).
The instant claim 6 is taught by the reference claim 27.
The instant claim 9 is taught by the reference claims 22-24 a except that the reference claims do not state the fibrous materials form a nonwoven web, does not state the insulation liner is capable of being bent or flexed repeatedly without significant damage, and does not state that the insulation liner is recyclable. However, this limitation is rendered obvious by the reference patent which teaches that the fibrous material form a nonwoven web (US 12460764, Col. 1 Line 55 – Col. 3 Line 21), teaches that the insulation liner is capable of being bent or flexed repeatedly without significant damage (US 12460764, Col. 36 Lines 48-55 and Col. 51 Lines 24-31), and teaches that the liner is recyclable (US 12460764, Col. 1 Lines 62-63).
The instant claim 10 is taught by the reference claims 1-2, 4-5, 16-18, and 22-24, except that the reference claims do not state that the insulating layer has a thickness of about 1.2 to about 20 cm or that one or more edges of the barriers are sealed. However this is rendered obvious by the reference patent which teaches that the insulating layer has a thickness of about 1.2 to about 20 cm (US 12460764, Col. 45 Line 55 – Col. 6 Line 4). The reference patent further teaches that one or more edges of the barriers are sealed (US 12460764, Col. 63 Lines 55-60).
The instant claim 11 is taught by the reference claims 1-2, 4-5, and 16-18, except that the reference claims do not state that the insulating layer has a thickness of about 1.2 cm to about 30 cm, and does not state that the flexible insulation liner is recyclable. However, this is rendered obvious by the reference patent which teaches that the insulating layer has a thickness of about 1.2 to about 20 cm (US 12460764, Col. 45 Line 55 – Col. 6 Line 4), and teaches that the liner is recyclable (US 12460764, Col. 1 Lines 62-63).
The instant claim 12 is taught by the reference claims 1-2 and 4-5.
The instant claim 13 is taught by the reference claims 1-2 and 4-5.
The instant claim 14 is taught by the reference claims 1 and 19-20.
The instant claims 15 and 17 are taught by the reference claims 1-2, 4-5, and 16-18 except that the reference claims do not state that the barriers are adhered to the insulating layer by polyvinyl acetate. However, this limitations is rendered obvious by the reference patent which teaches that the barriers are adhered (bonded) to the insulating layer by polyvinyl acetate (US 12460764, Col. 1 Line 55 – Col. 3 Line 21).
The instant claim 16 is taught by the reference claims 1 and 19-20.
The instant claim 18 is taught by the reference claim 22.
The instant claim 19 is taught by the reference claims 1-2, 4-5, 16-18, and 22-24, except that the reference claims do not state that the barriers are moisture resistant barriers. However this is rendered obvious by the reference patent which teaches that the barriers are moisture barriers (US 12460764, Col. 1 Line 55 – Col. 3 Line 21).
The instant claim 23 is taught by the reference claim 28.
The instant claim 24 is taught by the reference claims 1-2, 4-5, 16-18, 22-24, and 28, except that the reference claims do not state that the second fibrous material further comprises jute fibers. However this is rendered obvious by the reference patent which teaches that fibrous material may further comprise jute fibers (US 12460764, Col. 40, Lines 32-54).
The instant claim 26 is taught by the reference claims 1-2, 4-5, 16-18, and 22-24 except that the reference claims do not state the fibrous materials are nonwoven, does not state that a portion of the inner surface of the barrier layers are adhered to a portion of the external surfaces of the insulating layer, does not state that the insulating layer and barrier layers are flexible. However, these limitations are rendered obvious by the reference patent which teaches that the fibrous material form a nonwoven web, teaches the barriers are adhered (bonded) to the insulating layer (US 12460764, Col. 1 Line 55 – Col. 3 Line 21), and teaches that the layers are flexible (US 12460764, Col. 1 Line 55 – Col. 2 Line 20).
The instant claim 27 is taught by the reference claims 1 and 14-15.
The instant claim 28 is taught by the reference claims 1-2, except that the reference claims do not state that the insulating layer has a thickness of about 1.2 cm to about 30 cm. However, this is rendered obvious by the reference patent which teaches that the insulating layer has a thickness of about 1.2 to about 20 cm (US 12460764, Col. 45 Line 55 – Col. 6 Line 4).
The instant claims 29 and 31 are taught by the reference claims 3 and 12.
The instant claim 30 and 32 are taught by the reference claims 1-5, 12, 16-18, and 22-24, except that the reference claims do not state that the second fibrous material further comprises jute fibers. However this is rendered obvious by the reference patent which teaches that fibrous material may further comprise jute fibers (US 12460764, Col. 40, Lines 32-54).
The instant claim 33 is taught by the reference claims 1-2, 4-5, 16-18, and 22-24 except that the reference claims do not state that the second fibrous material further comprises wood fibers. However this is rendered obvious by the reference patent which teaches that fibrous material may further comprise wood fibers (US 12460764, Col. 40, Lines 32-54).
The instant claim 34 is taught by the reference claims 1-2, 4-5, 16-18, and 22-24 except that the reference claims do not state the insulation liner is recyclable. However, these limitations are rendered obvious by the reference patent which teaches that the liner is recyclable (US 12460764, Col. 1 Lines 62-63).
The instant claim 35 is taught by the reference claims 1-2, 4-5, 16-18, and 22-24, except that the moisture barrier coating comprises polyvinyl acetate. However, this is rendered obvious by the reference patent which teaches that the moisture barrier coating comprises polyvinyl acetate (US 1246764, Col. 63 Lines 1-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7, 9-10, 16-18, 22, 25, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7, 9, and 16-17 recites the limitation of the first barrier being adhered (claims 7 and 9) or attached (Claims 16-17) to the second barrier. However, the initial disclosure does not appear to have support for this limitation. The instant specification discusses the first and second barriers each separately being bonded to the insulating layer (see the instant Par. 0171), or the barrier being sealed to the insulating layer (See the instant specification Par. 0173). However, the instant specification does not discuss adhering the first barrier and the second barrier together. Therefore, the initial disclosure does not have support for the limitation of claims 7, 9, and 16-17.
Claims 22, 25, and 36, recite the limitation that the flexible insulating layer has a substantially uniform thickness from a first end of the flexible insulating layer to a second end of the flexible insulating layer. However, the initial disclosure does not have support for this limitation. The instant specification discusses potential thickness values for the flexible insulating layer (See the instant specification Par. 0149). However, the instant specification does not discuss the flexible insulating layer having a substantially uniform thickness. Therefore, the initial disclosure does not have support for the limitations of claims 7, 9, and 16-17.
Claim 10 and 18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, since these claims depend from the claims rejected above and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
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 9-10, 28, and 35 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 9 recites the term “significant damage” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significant damage” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what amount of damage would constitute “significant damage.” For example, it is unclear if undergoing plastic deformation is significant damage, undergoing permanent deformation is significant damage, if being partially torn is significant damage, or if only being completely ripped is significant damage. As the instant specification does not provide guidance for the term, for purposes of examination claim 9 will be interpreted such that the liner undergoing “significant damage” is the liner being completely destroyed.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “a density of about 200 to about 1900” in line 2. However, claim 28 does not recite the units of these values. It is therefore unclear what units these values have. For purpose of examination, claim 28 is interpreted as instead reciting “a density of about 200 to about 1900 GSM” as supported by the instant claim 26.
Claim 35 recites the phrase “the moisture resistant coating” in line 1. However, claim 26, from which claim 35 depends, does not recite a single moisture resistant coating and instead recites a first moisture resistant coating and a second moisture resistant coating. It is thus unclear which moisture resistant coatings are required to comprise polyvinyl acetate. I.e., it is unclear if only the first, only the second, either, or both of the moisture resistant coatings require polyvinyl acetate. For purposes of examination, claim 35 is interpreted as instead reciting “wherein either the first or the second moisture resistant coating” as supported by the instant specification Par. 0231.
Claim 10 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, since these claims depend from the claims rejected above and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 22-24, and 26-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baer et al. (US 20140066872 A1) in view of Tinianov et al. (US 20130078422 A1) and Norlander et al. (US 6537680 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Baer teaches an insulating liner comprising an insulating layer which comprises first fibrous material (staple fiber which may be a cellulose or a polyethylene) and a second fibrous material comprising cellulose (bast) (Baer, Abstract, Par. 0010-0016, 0054-0056). Baer is silent regarding a general teaching to the amount of the first fibrous material (staple fiber). However, Baer teaches an example utilizing a regenerative cellulose as the staple fiber wherein the staple fiber is present in an amount of 15 wt.% (Baer, Par. 0015), which lies within the claimed range of about 14% to about 18% by weight and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. While this range is directed to a cellulose staple fiber, in the absence of a general teaching to the amount of a staple fiber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look towards the examples utilizing specific staple fibers as guidance for the amount of staple fiber such as polyethylene. Therefore, Baer renders obvious a first fibrous material which comprises 15% by weight of polyethylene within the insulating layer, see MPEP 2143. Baer teaches the first and second fibrous materials form a nonwoven web (Baer, Abstract and Par. 0010 and 0014-0015). Baer further teaches the insulating layer may be bonded to additional layers (Baer, Par. 0018). Regarding the insulating layer being flexible, 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), see MPEP 2112.01. Baer teaches a nonwoven textile that comprises the same material fibers as the instant invention as stated above. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, the insulation layer of Baer would have inherently exhibited some flexibility, satisfying the claimed limitation of being a flexible layer.
Baer is silent regarding the insulating layer having a density of about 200 to about 3500 grams per square meter (GSM).
Tinianov teaches an insulating material comprising cellulose, wherein the insulating material has a thickness of 20-500 mm (0.02-0.5 m) and a density of 8-48 kg/m3 (8000-48000 g/m3) depending on the required insulating properties (Tinianov, Abstract, Par. 0024, 0029, and 0033). This results in a density in GSM of 160-24000 g/m2, which overlaps the claimed range of about 200 to about 3500 GSM and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Baer and Tinianov are analogous art as they both teach insulating material comprising cellulose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created the insulating layer of Baer to have a density within the claimed range. This would allow for adequate insulating properties (Tinianov, Par. 0029 and 0033).
Modified Baer is silent regarding a first flexible barrier comprising paper adjacent to and adhered to a first external surface of the insulating layer with polyvinyl acetate and a second flexible barrier comprising paper adjacent to and adhered to a second external surface of the insulating layer with polyvinyl acetate, wherein the insulating layer is disposed between the first flexible barrier and the second flexible barrier.
Norlander teaches material comprising a fibrous layer comprising cellulose and polyethylene, a first paper barrier (secondary layer) adhered to a first external surface of the fibrous cellulose layer by a binder that is polyvinyl acetate, and a second paper barrier (secondary layer) adhered to a second external surface of the insulating layer by a binder that is polyvinyl acetate (Norlander, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 7-13, Col. 3 Lines 1-28, Col. 3 Line 66 – Col. 4 Line 67, Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 8 Line 27, and Col. 9 Lines 4-62). Norlander teaches the fibers are bonded together by polyvinyl acetate (Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 8 Line 27, and Col. 9 Lines 4-30). Norlander teaches the first and second paper barriers have a flexural rigidity and are capable of being bent without breaking and thus have some amount of flexibility, satisfying the claimed limitation of being a flexible layer (Norlander, Abstract, Col. 5 Lines 14-38, Col. 7 Lines 34-39, and Fig. 8).
Modified Baer and Norlander are analogous art as they are both fibrous materials comprising cellulose and polyethylene that may be adhered to additional layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created the insulating liner of modified Baer by adhering the insulating layer to first and second paper barriers with polyvinyl acetate as taught by Norlander. This would allow for material with barrier properties (Norlander, Col. 4 Lines 53-67).
Regarding the limitation of the insulation liner being recyclable, 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), see MPEP 2112.01. Modified Baer teaches an insulation liner comprising the same insulating layer comprising the same nonwoven textile that comprises the same material fibers as the instant invention as stated above. Modified Baer further teaches the insulation liner comprises paper barriers that are adhered to the insulating liner with polyvinyl acetate, which are the same materials as stated above. Modified Baer further does not state that any other, additional non-recyclable materials are included in the insulation liner. Modified Baer further states that the fibers may be plant based (Baer, Par. 0010). Modified Baer thus teaches an insulating layer that is identical or substantially identical to the claimed invention. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, the insulation liner of Baer would have inherently been recyclable, satisfying the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 3, modified Baer teaches the insulating layer has a thickness of 20-500 mm (2-50 cm or 0.02-0.5 m) and a density of 8-48 kg/m3 (8000-48000 g/m3) depending on the required insulating properties (Tinianov, Abstract, Par. 0024, 0029, and 0033). This results in a density in GSM of 160-24000 g/m2. Modified Baer’s density and thickness ranges overlap the claimed ranges of about 200 to about 1800 GSM and about 1.2 cm to about 20 cm respectively and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 6, modified Baer teaches at least a portion of the second fibrous material is bonded to at least a portion of the first fibrous material (Baer, Par. 0014; Norlander, Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 8 Line 27, and Col. 9 Lines 4-30).
Regarding claim 7, modified Baer teaches the first and second flexible barriers are both adhered to the insulating layer and therefore are indirectly adhered to each other, satisfying the claimed limitation (Norlander, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 7-13, Col. 3 Lines 1-28, Col. 3 Line 66 – Col. 4 Line 67, Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 8 Line 27, and Col. 9 Lines 4-62).
Regarding claim 9, Baer teaches an insulating liner comprising an insulating layer which first fibrous material comprising a staple fiber which may be a cellulose of a polyethylene and a second fibrous material comprising cellulose (bast) (Baer, Abstract, Par. 0010-0016, 0054-0056). Baer is silent regarding a general teaching to the amount of the first fibrous material (staple fiber). However, Baer teaches an example utilizing a regenerative cellulose as the staple fiber wherein the first fibrous material is present in an amount of 15 wt.% (Baer, Par. 0015), which lies within the claimed range of about 14% to about 18% by weight and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. While this range is directed to a cellulose staple fiber, in the absence of a general teaching to the amount of a staple fiber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look towards the examples utilizing specific staple fibers as guidance for the amount of staple fiber such as polyethylene. Therefore, Baer renders obvious a first fibrous material which comprises 15% by weight of polyethylene within the insulating layer, see MPEP 2143. Baer teaches the first and second fibrous materials form a nonwoven web (Baer, Abstract and Par. 0010 and 0014-0015). Baer further teaches the insulating layer may be bonded to additional layers (Baer, Par. 0018).
Baer is silent regarding the insulating layer having a density of about 200 to about 3500 grams per square meter (GSM).
Tinianov teaches an insulating material comprising cellulose, wherein the insulating material has a thickness of 20-500 mm (0.02-0.5 m) and a density of 8-48 kg/m3 (8000-48000 g/m3) depending on the required insulating properties (Tinianov, Abstract, Par. 0024, 0029, and 0033). This results in a density in GSM of 160-24000 g/m2, which overlaps the claimed range of about 200 to about 3500 GSM and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Baer and Tinianov are analogous art as they both teach insulating material comprising cellulose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created the insulating layer of Baer to have a density within the claimed range. This would allow for adequate insulating properties (Tinianov, Par. 0029 and 0033).
Modified Baer is silent regarding a first barrier covering a first external surface of the insulating layer and a second barrier covering a second external surface of the insulating layer and adhered to the first barrier, wherein the insulating layer is disposed between the first barrier and the second barrier.
Norlander teaches material comprising a fibrous layer comprising cellulose and polyethylene, a first paper barrier (secondary layer) adhered to a first external surface of the fibrous cellulose layer by a binder that is polyvinyl acetate, and a second paper barrier (secondary layer) adhered to a second external surface of the insulating layer by a binder that is polyvinyl acetate (Norlander, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 7-13, Col. 3 Lines 1-28, Col. 3 Line 66 – Col. 4 Line 67, Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 8 Line 27, and Col. 9 Lines 4-62). Norlander teaches the fibers are bonded together by polyvinyl acetate (Norlander, Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 8 Line 27, and Col. 9 Lines 4-30). Norlander teaches the first and second barriers are both adhered to the insulating layer and therefore are indirectly adhered to each other, satisfying the claimed limitation.
Modified Baer and Norlander are analogous art as they both fibrous materials comprising cellulose and polyethylene that may be adhered to additional layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created the insulating liner of modified Baer by adhering the insulating layer to first and second paper barriers with polyvinyl acetate as taught by Norlander. This would allow for material with barrier properties (Norlander, Col. 4 Lines 53-67).
Regarding the limitation of the insulation liner being recyclable, and the insulation liner being capable of being bent or flexed repeatedly without significant damage, 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), see MPEP 2112.01. Modified Baer teaches an insulation liner comprising the same insulating layer comprising the same nonwoven textile that comprises the same material fibers as the instant invention as stated above. Modified Baer further teaches the insulation liner comprises paper barriers that are adhered to the insulating liner with polyvinyl acetate, which are the same materials as stated above. Modified Baer further does not state that any other, additional non-recyclable materials are included in the insulation liner. Modified Baer further states that the fibers may be plant based (Baer, Par. 0010). Modified Baer thus teaches an insulating layer that is identical or substantially identical to the claimed invention. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, the insulation liner of Baer would have inherently been recyclable, and capable of being bent or flexed to some extent repeatedly without fully breaking and thus not being significantly damaged, satisfying the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 10, modified Baer teaches the barriers are heat-sealable and thus teaches one or more edges of the first and second barriers are sealed (Norlander, Col. 3 Line 66 – Col. 4 Line 67). Modified Baer teaches the insulating layer has a thickness of 20-500 mm (2-50 cm or 0.02-0.5 m) and a density of 8-48 kg/m3 (8000-48000 g/m3) depending on the required insulating properties (Tinianov, Abstract, Par. 0024, 0029, and 0033). This results in a density in GSM of 160-24000 g/m2. Modified Baer’s thickness and density ranges overlap the claimed ranges of about 1.2 cm to about 20 cm and about 200 to about 1800 GSM respectively and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 22, modified Baer teaches the flexible insulating layer has a substantially uniform thickness from a first end of the flexible insulating layer to a second end of the flexible insulating layer (Tinianov, Par. 0033, Claim 3, and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, the limitation of the second fibrous material comprising pre-consumer recycled fibers is a product by process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (See MPEP 2113). The second fibrous material structure of the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical or substantially identical to the claimed product-by-process second fibrous material structure subjected to the process steps of being a pre-consumer recycled fiber, and therefore absent any objective evidence showing to the contrary, the addition of the process limitations of claim 23 does not provide a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding claim 24, modified Baer teaches the second fibrous material further comprises jute fibers (Baer, Par. 0011 and 0028).
Regarding claim 26, Baer teaches an insulating liner comprising an insulating layer comprising a continuous layer of non-woven fibrous material comprising a first fibrous material (staple fiber which may be a cellulose or a polyethylene) and a second fibrous material comprising cellulose (bast) (Baer, Abstract, Par. 0010-0016, 0054-0056). Baer teaches the first fibrous material comprises thermoplastic (polyethylene) fibers and the second fibrous material comprises cellulose (base) which is different from the first fibrous material (Baer, Abstract and Par. 0014-0015). Baer teaches the first fibrous material is bonded to the second fibrous material (Baer, Abstract and Par. 0014). Baer is silent regarding a general teaching to the amount of the first fibrous material (staple fiber). However, Baer teaches an example utilizing a regenerative cellulose as the staple fiber wherein the staple fiber is present in an amount of 15 wt.% (Baer, Par. 0015), which lies within the claimed range of about 10% to about 20% by weight and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. While this range is directed to a cellulose staple fiber, in the absence of a general teaching to the amount of a staple fiber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look towards the examples utilizing specific staple fibers as guidance for the amount of staple fiber such as polyethylene. Therefore, Baer renders obvious a first fibrous material which comprises 15% by weight of polyethylene within the insulating layer, see MPEP 2143. Baer further teaches the insulating layer may be bonded to additional layers (Baer, Par. 0018). Regarding the insulating layer being flexible, 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), see MPEP 2112.01. Baer teaches a nonwoven textile that comprises the same material fibers as the instant invention as stated above. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, the insulation layer of Baer would have inherently exhibited some flexibility, satisfying the claimed limitation of being a flexible layer.
Baer is silent regarding the insulating layer having a density of about 200 to about 3500 grams per square meter (GSM).
Tinianov teaches an insulating material comprising cellulose, wherein the insulating material has a thickness of 20-500 mm (0.02-0.5 m) and a density of 8-48 kg/m3 (8000-48000 g/m3) depending on the required insulating properties (Tinianov, Abstract, Par. 0024, 0029, and 0033). This results in a density in GSM of 160-24000 g/m2, which overlaps the claimed range of about 200 to about 3500 GSM and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Baer and Tinianov are analogous art as they both teach insulating material comprising cellulose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created the insulating layer of Baer to have a density within the claimed range. This would allow for adequate insulating properties (Tinianov, Par. 0029 and 0033).
Modified Baer is silent regarding a first flexible paper barrier having a first inner surface disposed adjacent to a first external surface of the flexible insulating layer, the first inner surface comprising a first moisture resistant coating; and a second flexible paper barrier having a second inner surface disposed adjacent to a second external surface of the flexible insulating layer, the second inner surface comprising a first moisture resistant coating, wherein a first portion of the first inner surface is adhered to a first portion of the first external surface of the flexible insulating layer, and a first portion of the second inner surface is adhered to a first portion of the second external surface of the flexible insulating layer.
Norlander teaches material comprising a fibrous layer comprising cellulose and polyethylene, a first paper barrier (secondary layer) adhered to a first external surface of the fibrous cellulose layer by a binder that is polyvinyl acetate, and a second paper barrier (secondary layer) adhered to a second external surface of the insulating layer by a binder that is polyvinyl acetate (Norlander, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 7-13, Col. 3 Lines 1-28, Col. 3 Line 66 – Col. 4 Line 67, Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 8 Line 27, and Col. 9 Lines 4-62). Norlander teaches the first and second paper barriers have a flexural rigidity and are capable of being bent without breaking and thus have some amount of flexibility, satisfying the claimed limitation of being a flexible layer (Norlander, Abstract, Col. 5 Lines 14-38, Col. 7 Lines 34-39, and Fig. 8). Norlander teaches the first and second flexible barriers are coated with a moisture barrier coating (Norlander, Col. 4 Lines 52-67 – see “impermeable to liquid”), and can have both surfaces coated (Norlander, Col. 6. Lines 22-28).
Modified Baer and Norlander are analogous art as they are both fibrous materials comprising cellulose and polyethylene that may be adhered to additional layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created the insulating liner of modified Baer by adhering the insulating layer to first and second paper barriers with polyvinyl acetate as taught by Norlander. This would allow for material with barrier properties (Norlander, Col. 4 Lines 53-67).
Regarding the limitation of the insulation liner being recyclable, 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), see MPEP 2112.01. Modified Baer teaches an insulation liner comprising the same insulating layer comprising the same nonwoven textile that comprises the same material fibers as the instant invention as stated above. Modified Baer further teaches the insulation liner comprises paper barriers that are adhered to the insulating liner with polyvinyl acetate, which are the same materials as stated above. Modified Baer further does not state that any other, additional non-recyclable materials are included in the insulation liner. Modified Baer further states that the fibers may be plant based (Baer, Par. 0010). Modified Baer thus teaches an insulating layer that is identical or substantially identical to the claimed invention. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, the insulation liner of Baer would have inherently been recyclable, satisfying the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 27, modified Baer teaches the thermoplastic fibers are present in an amount of 15% as stated above for claim 26 (Baer, Par. 0015), which lies within the claimed range of about 14% to about 18% by weight and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 28, modified Baer teaches the insulating layer has a thickness of 20-500 mm (2-50 cm or 0.02-0.5 m) and a density of 8-48 kg/m3 (8000-48000 g/m3) depending on the required insulating properties (Tinianov, Abstract, Par. 0024, 0029, and 0033). This results in a density in GSM of 160-24000 g/m2. Modified Baer’s density and thickness ranges overlap the claimed ranges of about 200 to about 1900 GSM and about 1.2 cm to about 20 cm respectively and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Modified Baer teaches the second fibrous material comprises cellulosic (bast) fibers (Baer, Abstract, Par. 0010-0015).
Regarding claims 29 and 31, the limitation of the second fibrous material comprising pre-consumer recycled fibers is a product by process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (See MPEP 2113). The second fibrous material structure of the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical or substantially identical to the claimed product-by-process second fibrous material structure subjected to the process steps of being a pre-consumer recycled fiber, and therefore absent any objective evidence showing to the contrary, the addition of the process limitations of claims 29 and 31 does not provide a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding claims 30 and 32, modified Baer teaches the second fibrous material comprises jute fibers (Baer, Par. 0011 and 0028).
Regarding claim 33, modified Baer teaches the second fibrous material comprises wood cellulose fibers (Baer, Par. 0005, 0008, and 0010-0015).
Regarding claim 34, 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), see MPEP 2112.01. Modified Baer teaches an insulation liner comprising the same insulating layer comprising the same nonwoven textile that comprises the same material fibers as the instant invention as stated above for claim 26. Modified Baer further teaches the insulation liner comprises paper barriers that are adhered to the insulating liner with polyvinyl acetate, which are the same materials as stated above for claim 26. Modified Baer further does not state that any other, additional non-recyclable materials are included in the insulation liner. Modified Baer further states that the fibers may be plant based (Baer, Par. 0010). Modified Baer thus teaches an insulating layer that is identical or substantially identical to the claimed invention. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, the insulation liner of Baer would have inherently been recyclable, satisfying the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 35, modified Baer teaches the moisture resistant coating comprises polyvinyl acetate (Norlander, Col. 4 Lines 52-67).
Regarding claim 36, modified Baer teaches the flexible insulating layer has a substantially uniform thickness from a first end of the flexible insulating layer to a second end of the flexible insulating layer (Tinianov, Par. 0033, Claim 3, and Fig. 1).
Claims 11-13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baer et al. in view of Tinianov et al.
Regarding claim 11, Baer teaches an insulating liner comprising an insulating layer which comprises thermoplastic fibers (staple fibers which can be polyethylene or cellulose) polyethylene and cellulose (bast) fibers (Baer, Abstract, Par. 0010-0016, 0054-0056). Baer is silent regarding a general teaching to the amount of the staple fiber. However, Baer teaches an example utilizing a regenerative cellulose as the staple fiber wherein the staple fiber is present in an amount of 15 wt.% (Baer, Par. 0015), which lies within the claimed range of about 10% to about 20% by weight and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. While this range is directed to a cellulose staple fiber, in the absence of a general teaching to the amount of a staple fiber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look towards the examples utilizing specific staple fibers as guidance for the amount of staple fiber such as polyethylene. Therefore, Baer renders obvious a thermoplastic polyethylene fiber in an amount of 15% by weight of the insulating layer, see MPEP 2143. Regarding the insulating layer being flexible, 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), see MPEP 2112.01. Baer teaches a nonwoven textile that comprises the same material fibers as the instant invention as stated above. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, the insulation layer of Baer would have inherently exhibited some flexibility, satisfying the claimed limitation of being a flexible layer.
Baer is silent regarding the insulating layer having a density of about 200 to about 1900 grams per square meter (GSM) and a thickness of about 1.2 cm to about 30 cm.
Tinianov teaches an insulating material comprising cellulose, wherein the insulating material has a thickness of 20-500 mm (0.02-0.5 m) and a density of 8-48 kg/m3 (8000-48000 g/m3) depending on the required insulating properties (Tinianov, Abstract, Par. 0024, 0029, and 0033). This results in a density in GSM of 160-24000 g/m2. Tinianov’s density and thickness ranges overlap the claimed ranges of about 200 to about 1900 GSM and about 1.2 cm to about 30 cm respectively and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Baer and Tinianov are analogous art as they both teach insulating material comprising cellulose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created the insulating layer of Baer to have a density within the claimed range. This would allow for adequate insulating properties (Tinianov, Par. 0029 and 0033).
Regarding the limitation of the insulation liner being recyclable, 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), see MPEP 2112.01. Modified Baer teaches an insulation liner comprising the same insulating layer comprising the same nonwoven textile that comprises the same material fibers as the instant invention as stated above. Modified Baer further does not state that any other, additional non-recyclable materials are included in the insulation liner. Modified Baer further states that the fibers may be plant based (Baer, Par. 0010). Modified Baer thus teaches an insulating layer that is identical or substantially identical to the claimed invention. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, the insulation liner of Baer would have inherently been recyclable, satisfying the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 12, modified Baer teaches the thermoplastic fibers are in an amount of 15 wt.% (Baer, Par. 0015), which lies within the claimed range of about 14% to about 18% by weight and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 13, modified Baer teaches the thermoplastic fibers comprise polyethylene (Baer, Par. 0014).
Regarding claim 25, modified Baer teaches the flexible insulating layer comprises a continuous layer of fibrous material comprising the thermoplastic fibers and the cellulosic fibers (Baer, Abstract, Par. 0010-0016, 0054-0056). Modified Baer further teaches the flexible insulating layer has a substantially uniform thickness from a first end of the flexible insulating layer to a second end of the flexible insulating layer (Tinianov, Par. 0033, Claim 3, and Fig. 1).
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baer et al. in view of Tinianov et al. as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Norlander et al.
Regarding claim 14, modified Baer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 11. Modified Baer further teaches the insulating layer may be bonded to additional layers (Baer, Par. 0018).
Modified Baer is silent regarding a first flexible barrier adjacent to and adhered to a first external surface of the insulating layer and a second flexible barrier adjacent to and adhered to a second external surface of the insulating layer, and wherein the insulating layer is disposed between the first flexible barrier and the second flexible barrier.
Norlander teaches material comprising a fibrous layer comprising cellulose and polyethylene, a first paper barrier (secondary layer) adhered to a first external surface of the fibrous cellulose layer by a binder that is polyvinyl acetate, and a second paper barrier (secondary layer) adhered to a second external surface of the insulating layer by a binder that is polyvinyl acetate (Norlander, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 7-13, Col. 3 Lines 1-28, Col. 3 Line 66 – Col. 4 Line 67, Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 8 Line 27, and Col. 9 Lines 4-62). Norlander teaches the fibers are bonded together by polyvinyl acetate (Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 8 Line 27, and Col. 9 Lines 4-30). Norlander teaches the first and second barriers are both adhered to the insulating layer and therefore are indirectly adhered to each other, satisfying the claimed limitation. Norlander teaches the first and second paper barriers have a flexural rigidity and are capable of being bent without breaking and thus have some amount of flexibility, satisfying the claimed limitation of being a flexible layer (Norlander, Abstract, Col. 5 Lines 14-38, Col. 7 Lines 34-39, and Fig. 8).
Modified Baer and Norlander are analogous art as they both fibrous materials comprising cellulose and polyethylene that may be adhered to additional layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created the insulating liner of modified Baer by adhering the insulating layer to first and second paper barriers with polyvinyl acetate as taught by Norlander. This would allow for material with barrier properties (Norlander, Col. 4 Lines 53-67).
Regarding claim 15, modified Baer teaches the first flexible barrier is adhered to the first external surface of the insulating layer with polyvinyl acetate and the second flexible barrier is adhered to the second external surface of the insulating layer with polyvinyl acetate (Norlander, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 7-13, Col. 3 Lines 1-28, Col. 3 Line 66 – Col. 4 Line 67, Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 8 Line 27, and Col. 9 Lines 4-62).
Regarding claims 16-17, modified Baer teaches a first flexible barrier covering a first external surface of the insulating layer and a second flexible barrier covering a second external surface of the insulating layer (Norlander, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 7-13, Col. 3 Lines 1-28, Col. 3 Line 66 – Col. 4 Line 67, Col. 7 Line 43 – Col. 8 Line 27, and Col. 9 Lines 4-62). Modified Baer thus teaches the second flexible barrier layer is indirectly attached to the first flexible barrier with polyvinyl acetate.
Regarding claim 18, modified Baer teaches the first and second flexible barriers comprise paper (Baer, Col. 9 Lines 4-62).
Regarding claim 19, modified Baer teaches the first and second flexible barriers are coated with a moisture barrier coating (Norlander, Col. 4 Lines 52-67 – see “impermeable to liquid”), and can have both surfaces coated (Norlander, Col. 6. Lines 22-28). Modified Baer thus teaches the first flexible barrier comprises a moisture resistant coating on a first inner surface facing the flexible insulating layer, and the second flexible barrier comprises a second moisture resistant coating on a second inner surface facing the flexible insulating layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 27 February 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant request withdrawal of the double patenting rejections due to the filing of a terminal disclaimer.
The double patenting rejections have not been withdrawn as no terminal disclaimer has been filed. The double patenting rejections have been updated above in view of the present claim amendments.
Applicant requests the rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) be withdrawn as Applicant argues that the instant specification has support for the claim limitation of the barrier layers being adhered together. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
The instant specification discusses the first and second barriers each separately being bonded to the insulating layer (see the instant Par. 0171), or the barrier being sealed to the insulating layer (See the instant specification Par. 0173). However, the instant specification does not discuss adhering the first barrier and the second barrier together. Applicant points to Par. 0173, 0231, and 0234, quoting specific statements, to show support for the limitation. However, these paragraphs discuss the barrier being sealed to the insulating layer (Par. 0173), or discusses a single paper barrier that has been folded inside out and partially inverted that is then heat sealed to itself (Par. 0231 and 0234). No where in the instant specification does it discuss adhering two separate barriers together. Therefore, the instant specification does not have support for the claim limitation and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) stated in the previous grounds of rejection.
The rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) stated in the previous grounds of rejection have been withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
Regarding arguments directed to the rejections over prior art, on page 13 of the remarks applicant first argues that Baer does not teach the weight of polyethylene fibers. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Baer teaches an insulating liner comprising an insulating layer which comprises staple fiber which may be a cellulose or a polyethylene (Baer, Abstract, Par. 0010-0016, 0054-0056). Baer is silent regarding a general teaching to the amount of the staple fiber. However, Baer teaches an example utilizing a regenerative cellulose as the staple fiber wherein the staple fiber is present in an amount of 15 wt.% (Baer, Par. 0015), which lies within the claimed range of about 14% to about 18% by weight and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. While this range is directed to a cellulose staple fiber, in the absence of a general teaching to the amount of a staple fiber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look towards the examples utilizing specific staple fibers as guidance for the amount of staple fiber such as polyethylene, as Baer utilizes either polyethylene or regenerative cellulose for the same purpose of being a staple fiber. Baer thus renders obvious a staple fiber that is polyethylene in an amount of 15% by weight within the insulating layer, see MPEP 2143. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Secondly, on pages 14-15 of the remarks, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Baer with Tinianov to arrive at the claimed density range. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
In response to applicant's argument that Tinianov is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Tinianov is in the same field as Applicant’s endeavor as both the instant invention and Tinianov teach insulating material comprising cellulose fibers.
Furthermore, although Tinianov does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, such as the specific fibers used, Tinianov is used as a secondary reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the other applied prior art establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the presently claimed invention. Tinianov teaches that it is well known and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to form a fibrous insulative material to have a thickness and density that renders obvious the claimed ranges as stated above. Tinianov further provides motivation specific to forming the fibrous insulative material to have the specific thickness and density such as allowing for adequate insulating properties (Tinianov, Par. 0029 and 0033).
In view of the above, Tinianov renders obvious forming a fibrous insulating material, such as the insulating layer of Baer, to have the claimed thickness and density and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782