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 on May 18, 2026. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on May 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 28, and 34 have been amended. As such, Claims 1, 5-21, and 23-34 are currently pending in the application, with Claims 5-20 withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim 34 is 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 34 recites that the adhesive further comprises “a second flame retardant different from the non-halogenated flame retardant comprising at least one phosphate-containing compound and different from the non-halogenated latex comprising at least one second phosphate-containing compound different from the first phosphate-containing compound” in lines 2-5. Support for this limitation is not found in the Specification, as originally filed. For example, the Specification does not disclose or suggest using a second flame retardant that is (1) different from the non-halogenated flame retardant comprising at least one phosphate-containing compound and (2) different from the non-halogenated latex comprising at least one second phosphate-containing compound different from the first phosphate-containing compound. Moreover, Applicant has not pointed out where in the Specification this limitation is supported.
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 26 and 34 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 26 recites the adhesive further comprises a second flame retardant. Claim 34 recites that the adhesive further comprises “a second flame retardant different from the non-halogenated flame retardant comprising at least one phosphate-containing compound and different from the non-halogenated latex comprising at least one second phosphate-containing compound different from the first phosphate-containing compound” in lines 2-5. How is the material characterized as a “second flame retardant” when Claim 1 already requires two different flame retardant materials to be present? These claim limitations are unclear in scope. As such, Claims 26 and 34 are indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 21, and 23-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0156060 to Pyun et al. (“Pyun”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0220807 to Honig et al. (“Honig”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0276745 to Bergin et al. (“Bergin”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0000170 to Parks et al. (“Parks”).
With regard to Claims 1, 28, and 30, Pyun is related to a composite material suitable for use in thermal insulation comprising a scrim and a coating comprising a binder and a flame-retardant additive. See, e.g., Abstract, paragraph [0001], entire document. Pyun discloses that the binder is non-halogenated latex that can be acrylic-based or urethane-based. Paragraph [0092]. Pyun also teaches using non-halogenated flame-retardant additives, such as ammonium polyphosphate. Paragraph [0105]. Pyun teaches that the “components of the coating (e.g. binder, flame retardant additive, char former, other optional additives can be chosen such the coating is halogen free.” Paragraph [0120]. The coating disclosed by Pyun is suitable for use in an insulation product, including FSK or ASJ products, as Pyun teaches that it is used in composites comprising scrims and other layers, including barrier layers, such as foil layers. Paragraph [0043].
Pyun does not disclose the presence of a second phosphate-containing compound different from the ammonium polyphosphate. Honig is also related to layered materials that are flame retardant. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Honig teaches that blends of more than one phosphate are suitable for use to provide flame retardant properties, noting that a suitable blend comprises a mixture of ammonium phosphates such as mono ammonium phosphate, diammonium phosphate, and ammonium polyphosphate. Paragraph [0048]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a second phosphate-containing compound different from the ammonium polyphosphate in the binder composition disclosed by Pyun, thus satisfying the limitation of a second phosphate-containing compound, in order to provide more diverse flame retardant properties and because Honig demonstrates to the person having ordinary skill in the art that such blends are well known and suitable for use in similar applications with a predictable result of providing the flame retardancy.
Pyun does not disclose that the binder further includes both a smoke suppressant and an inert gas generator. Bergin is also related to flame-retardant adhesives. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Bergin teaches that the adhesive composition can be provided with useful additives, such as a smoke suppressant and an inert gas generator. Paragraph [0006]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a smoke suppressant and an inert gas generator to the adhesive composition disclosed by Pyun in order to provide additional flame retardant features of suppressing smoke and generating inert gas, as shown to be well known in the art by Bergin.
Pyun does not disclose the presence of a vapor barrier in contact with the adhesive, wherein the insulation material is moisture absorbing. Parks is also related to adhesive materials useful in insulation products. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Parks teaches that a proper use for such adhesive materials is in combination with a facing layer that acts as a vapor barrier. Paragraph [0002]. Parks teaches that known, suitable vapor barrier materials include FSK composite layers having kraft paper, paragraph [0052], which inherently possesses moisture absorbing features. See, e.g., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0360205 to Dorsey et al., paragraph [0018]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the adhesive disclosed by Pyun in the presence of a vapor barrier, wherein the insulation material absorbs moisture, such as in an FSK laminate, in order to provide the adhesive with a known usage in lamination products in the field of insulation, as shown to be known by Parks. It further would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a vapor barrier having a permeance less than 0.2 perm to be used in conjunction with the adhesive disclosed by Pyun in a thermal insulation system because Pyun discloses that the adhesive can be used with other layers of material to form a composite for such purposes, paragraph [0043], and because Parks teaches that vapor barrier provides improved moisture resistance and protection in insulation systems. Paragraphs [0067], [0072], and [0073].
With regard to Claims 21, 23, and 29, Bergin discloses that the flame-retardant adhesive can also include a mold and mildew inhibitor and a dispersant. Paragraph [0006]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include a biocide ingredient in the adhesive composition disclosed by Pyun in order to inhibit mold and mildew growth, as shown to be known in the art by Bergin. It also would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include a dispersant in the adhesive composition disclosed by Pyun in order to spread the ingredients of the composition, as shown to be known in the art by Bergin. With regard to Claims 24, 25, 27, and 31 to 33, Bergin teaches that the smoke suppressant can either be a zinc phosphate/zinc oxide complex and/or aluminum trihydrate. Paragraphs [0038] to [0040]. With regard to Claims 26 and 34, Bergin also teaches including additional flame retardant ingredients. See, e.g., paragraphs [0076] to [0086]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide an additional flame retardant to the composition disclosed by the combination of Pyun and Honig in order to increase flame retardant efficiency, as shown to be known in the art by Bergin.
Claims 1, 21, and 23-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0090945 to Sperber (“Sperber”) in view of Honig and Bergin, and further in view of Parks.
With regard to Claims 1, 28, and 30, Sperber is related to flame-retardant formulations comprising boric acid and diammonium phosphate. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Sperber discloses that the flame-retardant formulation can comprise a liquid latex. Paragraph [0015]. Sperber teaches that the formulation is non-halogenated. Paragraphs [0010] and [0034]. The coating disclosed by Sperber is suitable for use as an adhesive composition in an FSK or ASJ product, as Sperber teaches that the formulation comprises a binder, paragraph [0018], and is suitable for use in conjunction with textiles and insulation products. Paragraph [0003].
Sperber does not disclose the presence of a second phosphate-containing compound different from the diammonium phosphate. Honig is also related to layered materials that are flame retardant. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Honig teaches that blends of more than one phosphate are suitable for use to provide flame retardant properties, noting that a suitable blend comprises a mixture of ammonium phosphates such as mono ammonium phosphate, diammonium phosphate, and ammonium polyphosphate. Paragraph [0048]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a second phosphate-containing compound different from the diammonium phosphate in the binder composition disclosed by Sperber, thus satisfying the limitation of a second phosphate-containing compound, in order to provide more diverse flame retardant properties and because Honig demonstrates to the person having ordinary skill in the art that such blends are well known and suitable for use in similar applications with a predictable result of providing the flame retardancy.
Sperber does not disclose that the binder further includes both a smoke suppressant and an inert gas generator. Bergin is also related to flame-retardant adhesives. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Bergin teaches that the adhesive composition can be provided with useful additives, such as a smoke suppressant and an inert gas generator. Paragraph [0006]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a smoke suppressant and an inert gas generator to the adhesive composition disclosed by Sperber in order to provide additional flame retardant features of suppressing smoke and generating inert gas, as shown to be well known in the art by Bergin.
Sperber does not disclose the presence of a vapor barrier in contact with the adhesive, wherein the insulation material is moisture absorbing. Parks is also related to adhesive materials useful in insulation products. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Parks teaches that a proper use for such adhesive materials is in combination with a facing layer that acts as a vapor barrier. Paragraph [0002]. Parks teaches that known, suitable vapor barrier materials include FSK composite layers having kraft paper, paragraph [0052], which inherently possesses moisture absorbing features. See, e.g., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0360205 to Dorsey et al., paragraph [0018]. ]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the adhesive disclosed by Sperber in the presence of a vapor barrier, wherein the insulation material absorbs moisture, such as in an FSK laminate, in order to provide the adhesive with a known usage in lamination products in the field of insulation, as shown to be known by Parks. It further would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a vapor barrier having a permeance less than 0.2 perm to be used in conjunction with the adhesive disclosed by Sperber in a thermal insulation system because Sperber discloses that the adhesive can be used with other layers of material to form a composite for such purposes, paragraph [0043], and because Parks teaches that vapor barrier provides improved moisture resistance and protection in insulation systems. Paragraphs [0067], [0072], and [0073].
With regard to Claims 21, 23, and 29, Bergin discloses that the flame-retardant adhesive can also include a mold and mildew inhibitor and a dispersant. Paragraph [0006]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include a biocide ingredient in the adhesive composition disclosed by Sperber in order to inhibit mold and mildew growth, as shown to be known in the art by Bergin. It also would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include a dispersant in the adhesive composition disclosed by Sperber in order to spread the ingredients of the composition, as shown to be known in the art by Bergin. With regard to Claims 24, 25, 27, and 31 to 33, Bergin teaches that the smoke suppressant can either be a zinc phosphate/zinc oxide complex or aluminum trihydrate. Paragraph [0039]. With regard to Claims 26 and 34, Bergin also teaches including additional flame retardant ingredients. See, e.g., paragraphs [0076] to [0086]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide an additional flame retardant to the composition disclosed by the combination of Sperber with Honig in order to increase flame retardant efficiency, as shown to be known in the art by Bergin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. For example, the argument that the reference relied upon for the teaching of a vapor barrier, i.e., Dorsey, taught away from using facers that are moisture absorbing is acknowledged, and a new ground of rejection is presented above using Parks for the teaching of an insulation facing material that contains a vapor barrier and is moisture absorbing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 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, Marla D. McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
JEREMY R. PIERCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/JEREMY R PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights