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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 3, 2026, has been entered.
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 1-8 and 10-12 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.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 10-12, claim 1 recites a fire retardant laminate comprising a plurality of inorganic fibers in the form of a mat, the fire retardant laminate consisting of a fire retardant coating present on the first surface of the mat. However, the claim further recites the laminate further comprising an aluminum foil adhered to the second surface of the mat. The recitation of an aluminum foil adhered to the second surface of the mat indicates that the foil is a separate structure in relation to the mat.
The transitional phrase “consisting of” excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. In re Gray, 53 F.2d 520, 11 USPQ 255 (CCPA 1931). However, the recitation of “the laminate further comprising an aluminum foil adhered to the second surface of the mat” clearly indicates additional structural limitations beyond the scope of the fire retardant laminate consisting of a fire retardant coating present on the first surface of the mat. It is unclear how the fire retardant laminate can consist of a coating present on the first surface of a mat, but then further include an aluminum foil on the second surface of the mat.
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 1-6, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over GB 2053798 to Ruid in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0214832 to Boucke and USPN 6,245,842 to Buxton
Regarding claims 1-6, 8, and 10-12, Ruid teaches a flame retardant laminate comprising a flammable substrate, a metal foil adhered to a face of the substrate, and a resin-saturated fibrous web adhered to the foil, the foil being between the fibrous web and the substrate (Ruid, Abstract). Ruid teaches that the web is formed predominantly of fire-resistant fibers, such as glass, that the foil may be any suitable metal such as aluminum, and that the substrate may be lumber, plywood, or an insulative plastic foam (Id.). Ruid teaches that saturating the fibrous web serves the dual purpose of insulating the foil to protect it when the laminate is exposed to flame, and providing a durable and decorative surface for the laminate (Id., page 1 lines 40-45). Ruid teaches that the resin used to saturate the web may be any suitable material chosen to provide resistance to abrasion, wherein flammability and heat resistance may be considered in choosing the resin (Id., page 1 lines 40-53). Ruid teaches that the resin may be applied to the fibrous web and the web, while wet, can be applied to the foil so that the resin serves to bond the web and foil together (Id., page 1 lines 54-59). Note that since the fibrous web is saturated and the saturated web provides protection from flame, the fibrous web appears to additionally be coated as claimed.
Ruid does not appear to teach the thickness of the mat and the claimed fire retardant coating.
Regarding the claimed thickness, Ruid teaches an exemplary resin used to saturate the glass fiber web includes melamine (Ruid, page 1 lines 46-53). Additionally, Boucke teaches a floor panel exhibiting improved fire protection behavior, comprising a layer structure including a wood material core and a fire-resistant layer (Boucke, Abstract, paragraphs 0018-0019). Boucke teaches that the fire-resistant layer is impregnated with a binder such as melamine (Id., paragraph 0008). Boucke teaches that the fire-resistant layer can be present as a mat of fibers, such as glass fibers, wherein the thickness of the fire-resistant layer is preferably between 0.01 and 3 mm based on the desired fire protection classification (Id., paragraph 0019). Boucke teaches that the fire-resistant layer can designed as a decorative layer and/or covering layer (Id., paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the flame retardant laminate of Ruid, wherein the glass fiber web comprises a thickness, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Boucke, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional flame retardant laminate having a structure known in the art as being predictably suitable for impregnated glass fiber webs based on the desired fire protection classification.
Regarding the claimed coating composition, Ruid teaches that the resin used to saturate the web may be any suitable material chosen to provide resistance to abrasion, wherein flammability and heat resistance may be considered in choosing the resin. Additionally, Buxton teaches a flame-intumescent coating for a wood-based building product, the coating being adapted to expand to form an expanded coating when exposed to heat from a fire (Buxton, Abstract). Buxton teaches that the coating comprises a polymeric binder formed from a mixture including castor oil and an isocyanate, and at least one intumescent compound dispersed in the binder, wherein the castor oil is present in a quantity of 9-36% of the total weight of the coating (Id.). Buxton teaches that the isocyanate is preferably an aromatic isocyanate, wherein the isocyanate is added to the mixture in a quantity of 13-21% of the total weight of the coating (Id., column 4 line 32 to column 5 line 17). Buxton teaches that the intumescent material is added to the coating in a quantity of 6-30% of the coating by weight (Id., column 5 line 49 to column 6 line 9). Buxton teaches that other components may be added to the coating, including fillers, which are added to the coating in a quantity of 0-45% of the coating by weight (Id., column 6 lines 32-57). Buxton teaches that the coating may also contain a fibrous filler or other structural reinforcing additive, including glass fibers (Buxton, column 6 line 58 to column 7 line 7). Buxton teaches mixing the intumescent compound and fillers (Id., column 8 lines 4-20), and mixing the castor oil and isocyanate, and then mixing the intumescent compound and fillers with the castor oil and isocyanate (Id., column 8 line 21 to column 9 line 4). Buxton teaches that the coating is fast-curing and provides a protective insulating layer over a wood-based substrate (d., column 1 lines 5-10). Buxton teaches that the coating expands to protect the substrate, provides a physical barrier, and reflects heat way from the substrate (Id., column 5 line 49 to column 6 line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the flame retardant laminate of the prior art combination, wherein the flame resistant resin comprises the flame-intumescent composition, comprising amounts, such as claimed, as taught by Buxton, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional flame retardant laminate comprising a composition known in the art to predictably protect the substrate, provide a physical barrier, and reflect heat way from the substrate.
Note that as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, for purposes of examination, the flame-intumescent coating, the resin-saturated fibrous web, and metal foil are within the scope of the claimed fire retardant laminate.
Alternatively, Ruid teaches that the object is to provide flame retardancy for flammable construction materials, including lumber, plywood, pressed board, chip board, or hard board (Ruid, page 1 lines 19-33). It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the flame retardant laminate of the prior art combination can be preformed and laminated separately to a flammable construction material as desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the flame retardant laminate of the prior art combination, wherein the flame retardant laminate is formed separately from the flammable construction material, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional flame retardant laminate which can be preformed and stored.
Regarding claims 2-4, the percentages of each of the components of Buxton substantially overlap with the claimed ranges. Note that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 8, Buxton teaches the inclusion of castor oil, which is inherently a naturally derived polyol. Additionally, note that Buxton teaches the inclusion of a polyether polyol (Buxton, column 5 lines 18-38) and the inclusion of an additional polyol (Id., column 8 line 39 to column 9 line 4).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ruid in view of Boucke and Buxton, as applied to claims 1-6, 8, and 10-12 above, and further in view of USPN 9,279,072 to Poncet.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art combination teaches the inclusion of a polyether polyol (Buxton, column 5 lines 18-38) and the inclusion of an additional polyol (Id., column 8 line 39 to column 9 line 4). Buxton does not appear to teach that the claimed aromatic polyol. However, Poncet teaches a similar composite coating, having a low gross heat of combustion, used to assemble insulation panels such as mineral wool insulation panels, containing a polyisocyanate side and a polyol side (Poncet, Abstract). Poncet teaches that the polyol side includes a polyether ether polyol and an aromatic polyester diol, wherein the mixture of the polyols provides excellent adhesion together with suitable low viscosities, even at high filler levels (Id.). Poncet teaches that the composition is useful in manufacturing insulation panels that comprise a fibrous ceramic layer, a facing layer and an adhesive layer interposed between the fibrous and facing layers (Id., column 5 lines 48-59). Poncet teaches that the fibrous ceramic layer is made up of fibers such as glass fibers and formed into a layer or mat (Id., column 5 line 60 to column 6 line 9), and that a variety of structural, functional or decorative materials can be used as facing layers for an insulation panel, including metals such as aluminum and foils and wood, wherein facing layers on opposing sides may be made of different materials (Id., column 6 lines 12-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the flame-retardant coating of the prior art combination, and including an aromatic polyester diol, as taught by Poncet, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional coating comprising an additional polyol known in the art to predictably provide excellent adhesion with low viscosities suitable for the intended application.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed February 3, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Ruid does not disclose an independent fire retardant laminate. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is indefinite for the reasons set forth above. Additionally, for purposes of examination, the flame-intumescent coating, the resin-saturated fibrous web, and metal foil are within the scope of the claimed fire retardant laminate. Alternatively, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the flame retardant laminate of the prior art combination can be preformed and laminated separately to a flammable construction material as desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the flame retardant laminate of the prior art combination, wherein the flame retardant laminate is formed separately from the flammable construction material, such that the flame retardant laminate can be preformed and stored.
Applicants argue that Boucke does not cure the deficiencies of Ruid. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Boucke is relied on to teach a known and suitable thickness for a mat of fibers, such as glass fibers.
Applicants argue that Buxton does not teach a coating on a glass fiber mat or the inclusion of an aluminum facing layer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, Ruid teaches that the resin used to saturate the web may be any suitable material chosen to provide resistance to abrasion, wherein flammability and heat resistance may be considered in choosing the resin. Additionally, Buxton teaches a flame-intumescent coating for a wood-based building product, the coating being adapted to expand to form an expanded coating when exposed to heat from a fire. Buxton teaches that the coating may also contain a fibrous filler or other structural reinforcing additive, including glass fibers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the flame retardant laminate of the prior art combination, wherein the flame resistant resin comprises the flame-intumescent composition, as such a composition was known in the art to predictably protect the substrate, provide a physical barrier, and reflect heat way from the substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786