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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/14/2025 has been entered.
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendments/remarks filed 11/14/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and under examination.
The rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landin (US 6,153,674 A) as evidenced by Welna (US 5,578,671 A) is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landin (US 6,153,674 A) as evidenced by Welna (US 5,578,671 A), and further in view of Felsche and Clifton is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claims 12, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landin (US 6,153,674 A) as evidenced by Welna (US 5,578,671 A), and further in view of Matsuide (JP 2010053196 A) is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
1. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landin (US 6,153,674 A, hereinafter Landin) in view of Hiroshige (US 2007/0179223 A1, hereinafter Hiroshige) and Simon (US 2017/0210914 A1, hereinafter Simon).
Regarding claims 1-3, 14, and 16, the preamble term “heat-removing” is an intended use and does not add structural difference, thus the intended use is extended little patentable weight. See MPEP § 2112.02.
The instant invention discloses that the chemically cured or radiation cured resin is formed from free radical polymerizable monomers, and the free radical polymerizable monomers include monofunctional acrylates or methacrylates (instant US Pub. [0015]).
Landin teaches (col. 2, ll. 19-30; claim 1) a flexible self-supporting fire barrier material comprising:
about 0.5 weight % to about 25 weight % of a structural phase; and
about 75 weight % to about 99.5 weight % of inorganic heat absorbing compounds dispersed throughout the structural phase, based on a total weight of the fire barrier material;
wherein the structural phase comprises about 0.5 weight % to about 10 weight % binder and 0.01 weight % to about 15 weight % fibers, based on the total weight of the fire barrier material;
the inorganic heat absorbing compounds comprise an intumescent compound and an endothermic compound, wherein the intumescent compound and the endothermic compound are both particles (col. 6, ll. 37-41; col. 7, ll. 1-2; col. 9, ll. 20-25).
Landin teaches that the binder can be an acrylate polymer or methacrylate polymer (col. 3, ll. 45-47; col. 4, ll. 12-13; claims 4-6), which reads on the claimed chemically cured or radiation cured resin.
Landin teaches that the endothermic compound is in an amount of from about 14.5 weight % to about 94.5 weight % based on the total weight of the fire barrier material (col. 9, ll. 16-19), and the endothermic compound can be a hydrated metal compound (col. 8, ll. 46-51), which overlaps with the claimed ranges of “greater than 80 weight percent” and “greater than 85 weight percent”. The endothermic compound of Landin reads on the claimed plurality of endothermic particles.
Landin teaches that the intumescent compound can be intumescent graphite (col. 7, ll. 16-17). Landin also teaches that the intumescent compound is present in an amount sufficient to obtain useful intumescent properties in the composition (i.e. fire barrier material), the nature of the intumescent properties and the density of the compound are critical in determining the actual percentage useful in the composition, for example, intumescent graphite has excellent intumescent properties and relatively low density, thereby the weight ratio of intumescent graphite to the composition is lower than those intumescent compounds which have less intumescent properties and high density (col. 7, ll. 47-50, ll. 36-39).
Landin does not teach that the total amount of the binder and the endothermic compound is no less than 99 percent by weight in the fire barrier material.
However, Hiroshige teaches (abstract; claim 1) a thermally conductive sheet made of a composition comprising:
(A) a (meth)acrylic polymer, which reads on the acrylate polymer as the binder in Landin;
(B) a halogen-free flame retardant which can be an expanded graphite, and
(C) a hydrated metal compound, and the hydrated metal compound causes an endothermic reaction, which releases water upon combustion ([0009]), which reads on the endothermic compound in Landin;
wherein the composition includes the hydrated metal compound in an amount of 40-90 vol % of the total volume of the composition,
the thermally conductive sheet is a free-standing film ([0035]).
Hiroshige also teaches that the expanded graphite restricts supply of oxygen to combustion parts and intercepts heat due to expansion upon combustion, and thus exhibits flame retardancy ([0020]). Thus, the expanded graphite of Hiroshige reads on the intumescent compound such as the intumescent graphite in Landin.
Hiroshige also teaches that the expanded graphite is desirably added in an amount in the range of 1-100 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylic monomer in order to obtain good flame retardancy and good flexibility of the sheet ([0020]), equaling to 1-100 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylic polymer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the expanded graphite in an amount of 1-100 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylic polymer as taught by Hiroshige as the amount of the intumescent compound such as intumescent graphite in Landin, in order to obtain good flame retardancy and good flexibility of the fire barrier material with a reasonable expectation of success.
Landin teaches that the binder (e.g. an acrylate polymer) is in an amount of about 0.5 weight % to about 10 weight % based on the total weight of the fire barrier material (col. 2, ll. 19-30; claim 1). Thus, in the fire barrier material as taught by the combination of Landin and Hiroshige, the intumescent compound such as the expanded graphite can be in an amount of about 0.005 weight % to about 10 weight % based on the total weight of the fire barrier material.
Landin also teaches that the fire barrier material comprises a binder, fibers, an intumescent compound, and an endothermic compound (col. 2, ll. 19-30; claim 1), wherein the fibers are in an amount of about 0.01 weight % to about 15 weight % based on the total weight of the fire barrier material (col. 2, ll. 19-30; claim 1), the endothermic compound is in an amount of from about 14.5 weight % to about 94.5 weight % based on the total weight of the fire barrier material (col. 9, ll. 16-19).
Thus, in the fire barrier material as taught by the combination of Landin and Hiroshige, the total amount of the binder (the claimed chemically cured or radiation cured resin) and the endothermic compound (the claimed plurality of endothermic particles) can be in a range of more than about 99.5 weight % and about 99.98 weight % or less based on the total weight of the fire barrier material, which falls within the claimed ranges of “no less than 99 percent by weight” and “no less than 99.5 percent by weight”.
Landin teaches that the endothermic compound is a compound that absorbs heat by releasing water (col. 2, ll. 41-45), and the endothermic compound (the claimed plurality of endothermic particles) can be a hydrated metal compound (col. 8, ll. 46-51).
Landin does not teach that the endothermic compound can be sodium metasilicate pentahydrate.
However, Simon teaches a composition having an ablative effect, comprising a constituent E, which contains at least one fire-protection additive having an ablative effect (claim 1, [0092]),wherein the fire-protection additive having an ablative effect can be inorganic hydrates that give off water in an endothermic reaction under the effect of heat ([0095]), which reads on the endothermic compound in Landin.
Simon also teaches that the fire-protection additive having an ablative effect can be Na2SiO3·5H2O ([0096], claim 13), which is sodium metasilicate pentahydrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fire-protection additive such as sodium metasilicate pentahydrate (Na2SiO3·5H2O) as taught by Simon as the endothermic compound (i.e. a hydrated metal compound) in Landin, in order to absorb heat by releasing water with a reasonable expectation of success, because the fire-protection additive such as sodium metasilicate pentahydrate (Na2SiO3·5H2O) gives off water in an endothermic reaction under the effect of heat as recognized by Simon.
Landin also teaches that "self-supporting" means that fire barrier material has sufficient cohesive strength to support its own weight to be a self-supporting flexible sheet or a free standing article (col. 3, ll. 9-16), the fire barrier material is in the form of a sheet (col. 11, 39-48). Landin also teaches that the fire barrier material dissipates heat from the article protected by the material (col. 1, ll. 5-7; col. 11, ll. 4-7). Thus, the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material of Landin is a heat-removing sheet, and reads on the claimed single free-standing layer.
The instant invention discloses that the thickness of the heat-removing sheet has an average thickness in a range of 1 to 10 mm (instant US Pub. [0013]).
Landin teaches that when the fire barrier material is in the form of a sheet, the sheet has a thickness of at least about 0.5 mm (col. 11, ll. 39-42). Landin specifically teaches that the thickness of the sheet of the fire barrier material can be 0.62 cm (col. 11, ll. 27-29), equaling to 6.2 mm, which falls within the range of “1 to 10 mm” of the thickness of the heat-removing sheet in the instant invention.
Landin does not teach that the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material has a flexural modulus of less than 3000 MPa, a flexural strength of greater than 0.15 MPa, a heat absorption rate of at least 1.8 W/g for at least one temperature in a range of 60 °C to 170 °C.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed flexural modulus, the flexural strength, the heat absorption rate of at least 1.8 W/g for at least one temperature in a range of 60 °C to 170 °C, would flow naturally from the teachings of the combination of Landin, Hiroshige and Simon, because the teachings of the combination of Landin, Hiroshige and Simon provide substantially the same heat-removing sheet comprising the same plurality of endothermic particles such as sodium metasilicate pentahydrate, and the same chemically cured or radiation cured resin such as an acrylate polymer binding the endothermic particles together, wherein the heat-removing sheet comprises the same amount of the endothermic particles, and the same total amount of the resin and the endothermic particles as claimed, and also because the fire barrier material of Landin is a flexible self-supporting heat-removing sheet, and the fire barrier material as a sheet has the same thickness as the claimed heat-removing sheet as recognized by Landin. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 5-7, 10, and 11, Landin does not teach flexural modulus, flexural strength, a heat absorption rate of at least 2 W/g for at least one temperature in a range of 70 °C to 150 °C, and the heat-removing sheet absorbing at least 700 J/g when heated from 20 °C to 240 °C at a rate of 10 °C/min.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed flexural modulus, the flexural strength, a heat absorption rate of at least 2 W/g for at least one temperature in a range of 70 °C to 150 °C, and the heat-removing sheet absorbing at least 700 J/g when heated from 20 °C to 240 °C at a rate of 10 °C/min, would flow naturally from the teachings of the combination of Landin, Hiroshige and Simon, because the teachings of the combination of Landin, Hiroshige and Simon provide substantially the same heat-removing sheet comprising the same plurality of endothermic particles such as sodium metasilicate pentahydrate, and the same chemically cured or radiation cured resin such as an acrylate polymer binding the endothermic particles together, wherein the heat-removing sheet comprises the same amount of the endothermic particles, and the same total amount of the resin and the endothermic particles as claimed, and also because the fire barrier material of Landin is a flexible self-supporting heat-removing sheet, and the fire barrier material as a sheet has the same thickness as the claimed heat-removing sheet as recognized by Landin. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Landin teaches that the fire barrier material in the form of a sheet can be wrapped around a pipe 5.08 cm in diameter without cracking (col. 11, ll. 27-29), which reads on the claimed heat-removing sheet being bent to an inner radius of curvature of less than 10 cm without yielding or cracking.
Regarding claim 20, Landin teaches that when the fire barrier material is in the form of a sheet, the sheet has a thickness of at least about 0.5 mm depending on the end use application (col. 11, ll. 39-42), which overlaps with the claimed range of “1 to 4 mm”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the heat-removing sheet being bent to an inner radius of curvature of less than 1 cm without yielding or cracking, would flow naturally from the teachings of the combination of Landin, Hiroshige and Simon, because the teachings of the combination of Landin, Hiroshige and Simon provide substantially the same heat-removing sheet with the same thickness comprising the same plurality of endothermic particles such as sodium metasilicate pentahydrate, and the same chemically cured or radiation cured resin such as an acrylate polymer binding the endothermic particles together, wherein the heat-removing sheet comprises the same amount of the endothermic particles, and the same total amount of the resin and the endothermic particles as claimed. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landin (US 6,153,674 A, hereinafter Landin) in view of Hiroshige (US 2007/0179223 A1, hereinafter Hiroshige) and Simon (US 2017/0210914 A1, hereinafter Simon) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 20 above, and further as evidenced by “Density of Polymers” (“Density of Polymers (by density) from scipoly.com”, 2026, hereinafter “Density of Polymers”) and “Sodium Metasilicate Pentahydrate Information” (“Sodium Metasilicate Pentahydrate Information from Level 7 Chemical”, 2026, hereinafter “Sodium Metasilicate Pentahydrate Information”).
The disclosure of Landin in view of Hiroshige and Simon is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Landin teaches that the binder is in an amount of about 0.5 weight % to about 10 weight % based on the total weight of the fire barrier material (col. 2, ll. 19-30; claim 1), and the binder can be an acrylate polymer (col. 3, ll. 45-47; col. 4, ll. 12-13; claims 4-6); the endothermic compound (the claimed plurality of endothermic particles) is in an amount of from about 14.5 weight % to about 94.5 weight % based on the total weight of the fire barrier material (col. 9, ll. 16-19), and the endothermic compound can be a hydrated metal compound (col. 8, ll. 46-51).
Simon also teaches that the fire-protection additive has an ablative effect and gives off water in an endothermic reaction under the effect of heat ([0095]), the fire-protection additive can be sodium metasilicate pentahydrate (Na2SiO3·5H2O) ([0096], claim 13).
“Density of Polymers” as an evidentiary reference shows that an acrylate polymer can have a density of 0.9-1.2 g/cc (pp. 2-7).
“Sodium Metasilicate Pentahydrate Information” as an evidentiary reference shows that sodium metasilicate pentahydrate has a bulk density of 865.0 to 961.1 kg/m3 (p. 2), equaling to 0.865 to 0.961 g/cm3.
Thus, in the fire barrier material as taught by the combination of Landin, Hiroshige, and Simon, the endothermic compound can be in an amount of about 14.5-94.5 volume % based on the total volume of the fire barrier material, which overlaps with the claimed range of “greater than 60 volume percent”.
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landin (US 6,153,674 A, hereinafter Landin) in view of Hiroshige (US 2007/0179223 A1, hereinafter Hiroshige) and Simon (US 2017/0210914 A1, hereinafter Simon) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 20 above, and further as evidenced by Felsche (“Thermal studies on sodium silicate hydrates. IV. Thermal stability of sodium silicate hydrates Na2[SiO2(OH)2]·nH2O(n = 4, 5, 7, 8). Phase relations and decomposition characteristics under open-system conditions”, Felsche et al., Thermochimica Acta 88(2): 443-451, 1985, hereinafter Felsche).
The disclosure of Landin in view of Hiroshige and Simon is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, Landin teaches that the endothermic compound can be a hydrated metal compound (col. 8, ll. 46-51).
Simon also teaches that the fire-protection additive has an ablative effect and gives off water in an endothermic reaction under the effect of heat ([0095]), the fire-protection additive can be sodium metasilicate pentahydrate (Na2SiO3·5H2O) ([0096], claim 13).
Felsche as an evidentiary reference shows that sodium metasilicate hydrate Na2[SiO2(OH)2]·4H2O (i.e. Na2SiO3·5H2O) has endothermic peaks at temperatures of 352 K and 380-420 K (p. 445, § RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, 5th paragraph; p. 446, Fig. 1), equaling to 79 °C and 107-147 °C, which fall within the claimed range of “60 oC to 170 oC”.
4. Claims 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landin (US 6,153,674 A, hereinafter Landin) in view of Hiroshige (US 2007/0179223 A1, hereinafter Hiroshige) and Simon (US 2017/0210914 A1, hereinafter Simon) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 20 above, and further in view of Matsuide (JP 2010053196 A, hereinafter Matsuide).
The disclosure of Landin in view of Hiroshige and Simon is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, Landin teaches that the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material comprises a binder and inorganic heat absorbing compounds (col. 2, ll. 19-30), wherein the binder can be an acrylate polymer (col. 3, ll. 46-47).
Landin does not teach that the acrylate polymer is an ultraviolet (UV) cured acrylate.
However, Matsuide teaches a heat-absorbing sheet comprising a heat absorbing substance, and a binder for adhering the heat absorbing substance (para [0006], [0008]). Matsuide teaches that the binder can be ultraviolet-curable acrylic resins (para [0015]), which reads on the claimed ultraviolet (UV) cured acrylate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ultraviolet-curable acrylic resin as taught by Matsuide as the acrylate polymer in Landin, in order to bind inorganic heat absorbing compounds to form a fire barrier material (i.e. a heat-removing sheet) with a reasonable expectation of success, because the acrylate polymer and the ultraviolet-curable acrylic resin both work as a binder to adhere the heat absorbing substance to form a heat-absorbing sheet as art recognized. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Landin teaches that the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material comprises a binder and inorganic heat absorbing compounds (col. 2, ll. 19-30), wherein the binder can be silicone polymer (col. 4, l. 16).
Landin does not teach that the silicone polymer is chemically cured silicone.
However, Matsuide teaches a heat-absorbing sheet comprising a heat absorbing substance, and a binder for adhering the heat absorbing substance (para [0006], [0008]). Matsuide teaches that the binder can be crosslinkable silicone resins (para [0015]), which reads on the claimed chemically cured silicone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the crosslinkable silicone resin as taught by Matsuide as the silicone polymer in Landin, in order to bind inorganic heat absorbing compounds to form a fire barrier material (i.e. a heat-removing sheet) with a reasonable expectation of success, because the crosslinkable silicone resin and the silicone polymer both work as a binder to adhere the heat absorbing substance to form a heat-absorbing sheet as art recognized. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Landin teaches that a flexible self-supporting fire barrier material comprises a binder and inorganic heat absorbing compounds (col. 2, ll. 19-30).
Landin teaches that the fire barrier material is in the form of a sheet (col. 11, 39-48). Landin also teaches that the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material dissipates heat from the electrical item which is wrapped by the fire barrier material (col. 11, ll. 1-3). Thus, the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material of Landin is a heat-removing sheet.
Landin does not teach that the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material (i.e. a heat-removing sheet) is disposed adjacent the battery cell.
However, Matsuide teaches a heat-absorbing sheet comprising a heat absorbing substance, and a binder for adhering the heat absorbing substance (para [0006], [0008]). Matsuide also teaches that the heat absorbing sheet is attached around the periphery of the exterior can of a battery by absorbing heat to mitigate temperature increases (para [0051]), which reads on the claimed heat-removing sheet disposed adjacent the battery cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material (i.e. a heat-removing sheet) as taught by Landin attached around the periphery of the exterior can of a battery as taught by Matsuide, in order to dissipate heat from the battery to mitigate temperature increase with a reasonable expectation of success, because the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material (i.e. a heat-removing sheet) of Landin dissipates heat from the electrical item which is wrapped by the material as art recognized, and the heat absorbing sheet of Matsuide is attached around the periphery of the exterior can of a battery by absorbing heat to mitigate temperature increases as art recognized. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
5. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landin (US 6,153,674 A, hereinafter Landin) in view of Hiroshige (US 2007/0179223 A1, hereinafter Hiroshige) and Simon (US 2017/0210914 A1, hereinafter Simon) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 20 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 101921066 B1, see US 2021/0293368 A1, hereinafter Lee).
The disclosure of Landin in view of Hiroshige and Simon is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, Landin teaches that the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material comprises a binder and inorganic heat absorbing compounds (col. 2, ll. 19-30), wherein the binder can be either a thermoplastic polymer or a thermosetting polymer, including an acrylate polymer (col. 3, 36-37, 46-47).
Landin does not teach that the binder comprises ultraviolet (UV) cured aliphatic urethane acrylate.
However, Lee teaches that a thermal insulation material is coated with a UV curable film to maximize thermal insulation efficiency ([0014]-[0017], claim 1), and the UV curable film can be an acrylate resin such as an aliphatic urethane acrylate resin which can be cured by UV (ultraviolet) radiation ([0018]), which reads on the claimed ultraviolet (UV) cured aliphatic urethane acrylate. Lee also teaches that the thermal insulation material is fireproof insulation ([0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ultraviolet (UV) cured aliphatic urethane acrylate resin as taught by Lee as the binder (e.g. an acrylate polymer) in Landin, in order to make a fire barrier material with a reasonable expectation of success, because the ultraviolet (UV) cured aliphatic urethane acrylate resin is used in a thermal insulation (i.e. fireproof insulation) material to maximize thermal insulation efficiency as recognized by Lee. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
6. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landin (US 6,153,674 A, hereinafter Landin) in view of Hiroshige (US 2007/0179223 A1, hereinafter Hiroshige) and Simon (US 2017/0210914 A1, hereinafter Simon) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 20 above, and further in view of Alexander (US 2006/0155039 A1, hereinafter Alexander).
The disclosure of Landin in view of Hiroshige and Simon is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Landin teaches that the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material comprises a binder and inorganic heat absorbing compounds (col. 2, ll. 19-30), wherein the binder can be silicone polymer (col. 4, l. 16).
Landin does not teach that the binder is a platinum(Pt)-catalyzed silicone, or a moisture cured silicone.
However, Alexander teaches a fire resistant composition comprising a silicone polymer (abstract, claim 1), and the silicone polymer can be a platinum catalysed silicone, or a moisture cured silicone ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the platinum catalysed silicone or the moisture cured silicone as taught by Alexander as the silicone polymer in Landin, in order to form a fire barrier material with a reasonable expectation of success, because the platinum catalysed silicone and the moisture cured silicone work as a silicone polymer in a fire resistant composition as recognized by Alexander. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior rejections have been considered but are moot, because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection. The current rejection utilizes new references, Hiroshige (US 2007/0179223 A1) and Simon (US 2017/0210914 A1), in addition to the previous reference Landin (US 6,153,674 A) under a new ground(s) of rejection which renders obvious the instant claims.
As stated above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landin (US 6,153,674 A) in view of Hiroshige (US 2007/0179223 A1) and Simon (US 2017/0210914 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761