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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant did not amend the claims in the reply filed on 02/06/2026.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending; claims 11-20 are withdrawn; claims 1-6 and 8-10 are examined hereafter.
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 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wall et al (WO 2022/040794 A1) in view of Cooney et al (U.S. 2017/0301968). Note: all references regarding Wall made in parenthesis hereafter are referencing the U.S. publication equivalent Wall et al (U.S. 2023/0338757).
Regarding claim 1, Wall teaches a fire suppression device (mesh seen in Fig 2) comprising:
a non-conductive support layer (mesh 12) including a plurality of non-conductive strands (defined by weaving non-metal strands 14) arranged to form a plurality of apertures (openings 16), the plurality of non-conductive strands comprising a thermally non-conductive material (Par 0021 discloses the strands made out of basalt, fiberglass, etc.; which are thermally non-conductive as acknowledged by Applicant’s own specification in Pars 0009 and 0010); and
an intumescent coating (18) disposed on at least a portion of the plurality of non-conductive strands (as seen in Fig 3 and disclosed in Par 0028), the intumescent coating configured to expand to at least partially close a portion of the plurality of apertures upon the intumescent coating being heated to a temperature greater than or equal to a threshold temperature (as disclosed in Par 0005); the threshold temperature indicative of a fire (Par 0036 discloses the mesh including the intumescent coating; and Par 0037 discloses the mesh “sealing”, i.e. closing the apertures, in the event of a “fire”; as such, it is clear from this disclosure that the threshold temperature, i.e. the temperature that causes the intumescent coating to close the apertures, is a temperature that is indicative of a fire).
However, Wall does not teach the device wherein the intumescent coating comprises a temperature-sensitive pigment configured to change color upon the intumescent coating being heated to the temperature greater than or equal to the threshold temperature.
Cooney teaches a thermal isolation material in which an intumescent material (110) changes color indicating a phase change (Par 0129) (Examiner notes that the presence of a temperature-sensitive pigment is implied in Cooney, otherwise the intumescent material would not change color; that is, a color change implies a change in pigmentation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wall to incorporate the teachings of Cooney to provide the intumescent material with color changing properties in order to have a visual indicator that a phase change has occurred (as disclosed in Par 0129 of Cooney), i.e. an indication that a temperature threshold for the material has been reached. Wall teaches that the intumescent coating changes phase, from a solid (see Par 0040) to a non-solid state in which the coating swells in order to close the apertures after a threshold temperature is reached (see Par 0005). That is, a phase-change in the art of intumescent materials corresponds to a temperature threshold being reached. As such, in combination, Wall and Cooney teach a color change (as taught by Cooney), which represents an indication that the coating was heated to the threshold temperature (as taught by Wall). Note that Wall teaches the threshold temperature being indicative of fire; thus Cooney does not need to teach this feature.
Note: All references made in parenthesis hereafter are referencing Wall, unless otherwise stated.
Regarding claim 2, Wall and Cooney teach the fire suppression device of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of non-conductive strands comprises basalt fiber (as disclosed in Par 0021).
Regarding claim 3, Wall and Cooney teach the fire suppression device of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of non-conductive strands comprises at least one of carbon fiber, glass fiber, aramid, fiberglass, and quartz fiber (as disclosed in Par 0021).
Regarding claim 4, Wall and Cooney teach the fire suppression device of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of non-conductive strands comprises a first non-conductive composition and a second non-conductive composition, the first non-conductive composition being different than the second non-conductive composition (Par 0022 discloses the strands made out of a blend of suitable acrylic copolymers, thermoset polymers, etc. As such, it comprises at least two distinct non-conductive compositions, as claimed).
Regarding claim 5, Wall and Cooney teach the fire suppression device of Claim 1. However, Wall does not explicitly teach the device wherein each aperture of the plurality of apertures has a predetermined height and a predetermined width, the predetermined height being greater than or equal to 3.25 mm and less than or equal to 4.25 mm, wherein the predetermined width is greater than or equal to 3.25 mm and less than or equal to 4.25 mm.
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable aperture height and width, including greater than or equal to 3.25 and less than or equal to 4.25 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Aller: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case, Wall discloses all the general structure of the claim and discloses (Par 0004) a range of height and width being in between about 0.18 to 0.32 inches in width and height - wherein 0.18 inches is 4.57 mm, which is close to the claimed range. That is Wall, recognizes the importance of aperture size. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal or workable aperture height and width. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the claimed aperture height and range. In fact, the Applicant’s specification discloses the range of the aperture height and width as being between 3.25 mm to 4.75 mm – see Par 0046, which is a range that Wall clearly anticipates. In other words, the claim was amended to claim a range that falls right outside the range that Wall teaches, but the claimed range as amended does not have any criticality disclosed in the Specification. Finally, changes in aperture height and width affect the characteristics of the fire suppression device and how it functions, i.e. aperture cross-section is a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would be obvious to try (see KSR MPEP 2141 III) different aperture sizes to meet any desired fire suppression characteristic, based on the intended environment the device is placed in.
Regarding claim 6, Wall and Cooney teach the fire suppression device of Claim 1. However, Wall does not explicitly teach the device wherein a predetermined amount of intumescent coating is disposed on at least a portion of the plurality of non-conductive strands, the predetermined amount being greater than or equal to 0.08 and less than or equal to 0.20 pounds per square foot of the support layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable amount of intumescent coating, including 0.08 to 0.20 pounds per square foot of the support layer, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Aller: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case, Wall discloses all the general structure of the claim. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal or workable amount of intumescent material per square foot of support layer. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the predetermined amount being between approximately 0.08 and approximately 0.20 pounds per square foot of the support layer. Finally, changes in the amount of intumescent coating affect the characteristics of the fire suppression mesh, i.e. the amount of intumescent material is a result-effective variable (Wall recognizes this in Par 0041 and Applicant also recognizes this in Par 0049 of their specification). Therefore, it would be obvious to try (see KSR MPEP 2141 III) different amounts of intumescent coating to meet any desired fire protection characteristic, based on the object to be protected and the intensity of the fire that can be present in its environment.
Regarding claim 8, Wall and Cooney teach the fire suppression device of Claim 1. However, Wall does not teach the threshold temperature being greater than or equal to 280°F and less than or equal to 300°F.
Nonetheless, Wall discloses that the activation temperature of the intumescent coating being 520°F, but could be lower by modifying the composition of the intumescent material (see Par 0028). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable temperature threshold for the intumescent coating, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Aller: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case, Wall discloses all the general structure of the claim. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal or workable temperature threshold. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the temperature threshold between 280°F and 300°F. Finally, changes in the activation temperature threshold for the intumescent material is a result-effective variable (Wall recognizes this in Pars 0029-0033). Therefore, it would be obvious to try (see KSR MPEP 2141 III) different threshold temperatures to meet any desired fire protection characteristic, based on the object to be protected and the ideal target temperature or maximum temperature the object should be exposed to.
Regarding claim 9, Wall and Cooney teach the fire suppression device of Claim 1, wherein the intumescent coating expands to form a char layer (see Par 0027) of a predetermined thickness, the predetermined thickness being greater than or equal to 10 mm and less than or equal to 30 mm (Examiner notes that char layer is not positively recited, instead the intumescent coating is configured to expand to form the char layer. That is, the char layer and its thickness is a result of the composition of the intumescent coating. Therefore, since Wall teaches every claimed aspect of the intumescent coating, including a char-forming component - Par 0027, the intumescent coating is deemed capable of producing a layer thickness of 10 to 30 mm).
Regarding claim 10, Wall and Cooney teach the fire suppression device of Claim 1, wherein the intumescent coating expands (i) outwardly toward a source of heat; (ii) inwardly away from the source of heat; and (iii) laterally to at least partially close at least a portion of the plurality of apertures (as seem in Figs 4A, the intumescent coating 18 expands in 360 degrees from the fibers; the mesh being a three-dimensional object, the coating expands towards the fire, away from the fire, and sideways, as claimed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Wall nor Cooney teach a fire suppression device wherein “the intumescent coating comprises a temperature-sensitive pigment configured to change color upon the intumescent coating being heated to the temperature greater than or equal to the threshold temperature, the threshold temperature indicative of a fire.” Applicant argues that although Cooney teaches “the intumescent material changing color, indicating that a phase change has occurred” is not the same as “a temperature-sensitive pigment configured to change color upon the intumescent coating being heated to the temperature greater than or equal to the threshold temperature, the threshold temperature indicative of a fire”. Applicant further states that Cooney’s material inherently produces a darkened appearance due to carbonization, but does not disclose or suggest incorporating any pigment, such as a temperature-sensitive pigment.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the presence of a temperature-sensitive pigment in Cooney, Examiner notes that the presence of a temperature-sensitive pigment similar to the one in Applicant’s disclosure, is implied in Cooney (Par 0129), otherwise the intumescent material would not change color as it goes through a phase change. That is, a color change implies a change in pigmentation. Cooney Par 0129 reads: “The thermal isolation material 100 had some charring and the intumescent material 110 changed color, indicating that a phase change has occurred” That is, after the threshold temperature has been reached, the material 100 experiences charring. Applicant’s specification Par 0052 discloses: “For example, the fire suppression device 100 can initially be a gray color. Upon exposure to fire or other thermal event that causes the pigment of the fire suppression device 100 to reach or exceed the threshold temperature, the pigment can change to a darker, charred color.” Based on these disclosures, the material of Cooney experiences a color change indicating charring, whilst similarly, the material of Applicant’s specification experiences a change in color that is charred. Examiner assert that both materials change color that corresponds to charring. At the very least, Cooney teaches a material that has pigmentation that is the same as the example Applicant gives in Par 0052 of their own specification. Examiner notes that the claim is silent with respect to the color that results from the threshold temperature being reached, and silent with respect to the specific pigment used. Therefore, Examiner has interpreted the color change to be a charred color, which Cooney teaches and Applicant discloses as an example.
Furthermore, a phase-change in the context of an intumescent material implies that the intumescent material has reached a temperature threshold. Support for this is provided by Wall, which teaches that the intumescent coating changes from a solid (see Par 0040) to a non-solid state in which the coating “swells” in order to close the apertures after a threshold temperature is reached (see Par 0005), i.e. a phase-change occurs when the intumescent material reaches a threshold temperature. As modified by Cooney, the color changes in response to the phase-change, i.e. the temperature threshold. Thus reading on claim language.
Lastly, Wall teaches that the threshold temperature is indicative of fire (as disclosed in Pars 0036 and 0037 and stated in the rejection above). Examiner notes that since this feature is taught by the main reference Wall, Cooney does not need to teach this.
For these reasons, Examiner has maintained the current grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights