Application No. 16/228,742
`
`Docket No.: 083710-2481
`
`Introduction
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 19-21, and 24-30 are pending, of which claims 1 and 24 are
`
`independent.
`
`Claims 1, 5, 9, and 24 have been amendedto correct informalities in the claim language
`
`and to more clearly define the present subject matter. Claims 12-18 and 22-23 have been
`
`cancelled without prejudice. New claim 30 has been added. The amendments of claims 1 and 24
`
`are supported by, for example, original claims 6 and 9, and paragraphs [0027], [0038] of the
`
`published present application (US2019/0145571). New claim 30 is supported by, for example,
`
`original claims 9. No new matter has been added.
`
`Substance of Interview
`
`Applicant thanks the Examinerfor his time and courtesy during an interview conducted
`
`with the Applicant’s representative, Takashi Saito, on February 7, 2023. During the interview,
`
`the differences between the claims and the prior art were discussed. No agreement was reached.
`
`This responsereflects the substance of the interview.
`
`Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`Claims 12-18, 22, and 23 are rejected under AJA 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply
`
`with the enablement requirement. Claims 12-18, 22, and 23 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(b) as being indefinite.
`
`Without conceding the correctness of the rejection, claims 12-18, 22 and 23 have been
`
`cancelled.
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 083710-2481
`
`Introduction
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 19-21, and 24-30 are pending, of which claims 1 and 24 are
`
`independent.
`
`Claims 1, 5, 9, and 24 have been amendedto correct informalities in the claim language
`
`and to more clearly define the present subject matter. Claims 12-18 and 22-23 have been
`
`cancelled without prejudice. New claim 30 has been added. The amendments of claims 1 and 24
`
`are supported by, for example, original claims 6 and 9, and paragraphs [0027], [0038] of the
`
`published present application (US2019/0145571). New claim 30 is supported by, for example,
`
`original claims 9. No new matter has been added.
`
`Substance of Interview
`
`Applicant thanks the Examinerfor his time and courtesy during an interview conducted
`
`with the Applicant’s representative, Takashi Saito, on February 7, 2023. During the interview,
`
`the differences between the claims and the prior art were discussed. No agreement was reached.
`
`This responsereflects the substance of the interview.
`
`Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`Claims 12-18, 22, and 23 are rejected under AJA 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply
`
`with the enablement requirement. Claims 12-18, 22, and 23 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(b) as being indefinite.
`
`Without conceding the correctness of the rejection, claims 12-18, 22 and 23 have been
`
`cancelled.
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/228,742
`
`Docket No.: 083710-2481
`
`Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1, 5, 7 and 9-23 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Shibata (WO 2014/132652) in view of Goulet (US 2009/0258180) and Kobayashi (US
`
`6368712). Claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 9-23 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Shibata in view of Goulet, Kobayashi and Besselievre (US2014/0252263). Claims 8 and
`
`24-29 wererejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Goulet,
`
`Kobayashi, Besselievre and Oh (US2016/0264427). Without conceding any correctness of the
`
`rejections, Applicant traverses the rejections for at least the following reasons.
`
`Regarding claims 1 and 24, at a minimum, noneofthe cited references teaches the
`
`feature “the silica xerogelis filled in the nonwoven fabric to form a single layer essentially
`
`consisting of the nonwovenfabric andthesilica xerogel.” In the present application, as shown in
`
`pages 10-12, the insulating material as a single layer is formed poring a sol solution onto a
`
`nonwoven fabric. Thus, the single layer essentially consists of the nonwoven fabric and the
`
`silica xerogel.
`
`The Office Action asserted that Shibata teaches a heat insulating structure including an
`
`aerogel layer including aerogel particles and the aerogel may include xerogel.
`
`However, Shibata at most discloses a layer containing a holding material 3 (resin) and
`
`fibrous substance 3 disposed overan airgel layer 1. Thus, Shibata fails to disclose the
`
`aforementioned features of claims 1 and 24. The remaining cited references do not cure the
`
`deficiencies of Shibata.
`
`Further, none of the cited references disclose or suggestthat the plurality of nonwoven
`
`fabric fibers comprise the carboxyl group, as recited by claims 1 and 24. Regarding modification
`
`by a carboxyl group, the Office Action relied on Kobayashi.
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/228,742
`
`Docket No.: 083710-2481
`
`However, Applicant submits that it is considered that the carboxyl group in Kobayashi
`
`would not be present on the surface of the fibers by the following reasons. If an epoxyresin is
`
`used as the matrix resin in Kobayashi, the groups capable of reacting with the epoxyresin, i.e.,
`
`carboxyl group, would react with the epoxy resin and be bondedto the epoxy resin. When the
`
`carboxyl group reacts with the epoxyresin, the following chemical reaction would happen:
`
`ii
`
`A OOO 0HOGQCOD
`s
`TENTS
`i
`:
`
`~
`
`Asie
`RES
`
`9
`a "as Ny,
`oooon
`wee G ere an
`
`In this regard, the carboxyl group in Kobayashi would not be present on the surface of the fibers.
`
`Thatis, the teaching of Kobayashi as a whole indicates that no carboxyl group on the surface of
`
`fibers. Therefore, the combinedreferencesfail to teach the feature “the plurality of nonwoven
`
`fabric fibers comprise the carboxyl group” of claims 1 and 24.
`
`Assuch, claims 1 and 24 andall claims dependentthereon are patentable overthe cited
`
`references.
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/228,742
`
`Docket No.: 083710-2481
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Having fully respondedto all matters raised in the Office Action, Applicant submits that
`
`all claims are in condition for allowance, an indication for whichis respectfully solicited. If
`
`there are any outstanding issues that might be resolved by an interview or an Examiner’s
`
`amendment, the Examineris requested to call Applicant’s attorney at the telephone number
`
`shownbelow.
`
`To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension of time under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 is
`
`hereby made. Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing of this paper,
`
`including extension of time fees, to Deposit Account 500417 and please credit any excess fees to
`
`such deposit account.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`/Takashi Saito/
`
`Takashi Saito
`Registration No. 69,536
`
`Please recognize our Customer No. 53080
`as our correspondenceaddress.
`
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001-1531
`Phone: 202.756.8244
`Facsimile: 202.756.8087
`Date: February 15, 2023
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
