DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 03/24/2026:
claims 4-6, 9-17 and 19-31 are currently pending
claims 15-17 and 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration
claim 21 is amended
prior art grounds of rejection reapplying Barone, Fir, E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties, Chen and Meng are presented herein
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 text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 5-6, 9-11, 21-23, 25-28 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barone et al. (US 9097011 B1), hereinafter referred to as BARONE, in view of Fir et al. (WO 2012154132 A2), hereinafter referred to as FIR, and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties retrieved from https://envirospheres.com.au/products/e-spheres-sl-series/ on 11.20.2025, with evidence from Meng et al. (CN 112175461 A) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as MENG, as to the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 21, BARONE teaches a fire-resistant composition (see BARONE at Col. 1, lines 7-8: fire resistant plastic foam that can be used in building construction), comprising:
an intumescent (see BARONE at Col. 2, lines 17-19: the intumescent coating includes expandable graphite);
a blowing agent (see BARONE at Col. 2, lines 17-19: the intumescent coating includes a blowing agent);
a catalyst (see BARONE at Col. 2, lines 17-19: the intumescent coating includes catalyst); and
a binder comprising: a thermoplastic compound and a thermoset compound; and water (see BARONE at Col. 7, lines 14-17: the binder may be a thermoplastic polymer, a thermosetting polymer or a combination of both; the binder may be water-borne; water-borne binders are dissolved in water).
But BARONE fails to explicitly teach a plurality of particles having an electrical resistivity of about 1x1012 ohm·cm or more, wherein the plurality of particles have an average particle size of about 50 µm to about 1000 µm.
The use of hollow ceramic particles in the fire-resistant compositions is known in the art, as evidenced from the disclosure of MENG describing an external wall thermal insulating intermediate coating, which has outstanding thermal insulation effect and good fire resistance (see MENG at paragraph [4]) and comprises 5-10% of hollow beads (see MENG at paragraph [7]). Additionally, MENG teaches that the hollow microspheres are selected from ultralight ceramic sand, the thermal conductivity of the hollow microspheres is 0.03-0.04 W/(m·K), so that the coating film has the characteristics of low thermal conductivity and high fire resistance (see MENG at paragraph [18]).
Furthermore, FIR discloses adhesive/sealant with lower heat conductivity for insulated glass unit and gas filled insulation construction panel (see FIR at paragraph 1, p. 1). FIR teaches that reduced thermal conductivity of the adhesive/sealant is achieved with minimum technical effort if the adhesive/sealant fillers are replaced in part with mineral and/or organic hollow microspheres or if these microspheres are added to the adhesive/sealant mass (see FIR at last paragraph p. 4-first paragraph, p. 5). FIR also teaches that hollow microspheres are expanded closed cell structures or hollow spherical fillers or ovoid shapes ranging in size from 5 to 500 micrometers; hollow microspheres can also be filled with gas (e.g. CO2, Ar); hollow microspheres can be based on minerals (glass, ceramics) or based on organic polymers (PE, PU, PS, PMMA); examples of suitable mineral hollow microspheres are: Eurocell of Europerla, E-spheres of Envirospheres (see FIR at paragraph 2, p. 5). FIR discloses that the minimum size of mineral hollow microsphere available on the market is 5 µm while the maximum size is up to 500 µm (see FIR at paragraph 3, p. 5). Additionally, FIR teaches that larger the hollow microspheres, lower the thermal conductivity of the mass, as the hollow microspheres have significantly lower thermal conductivity (see FIR at paragraph 2, p. 6). Furthermore, the electrical resistivity of the E-spheres SL Series by Envirospheres is disclosed in E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties describing electrical resistance of 1015 ohm·cm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the fire-resistant composition of BARONE by including hollow microspheres with size up to 500 µm, e.g., E-Spheres by Envirospheres, as disclosed by FIR based on the disclosure of FIR describing that larger the hollow microspheres, lower the thermal conductivity of the mass, as the hollow microspheres have significantly lower thermal conductivity (see FIR at paragraph 2, p. 6). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used any type of E-Spheres, including the E-spheres SL Series by Envirospheres having electrical resistance of 1015 ohm·cm, in the absence of unexpected results as evidenced from disclosure of FIR describing that examples of suitable mineral hollow microspheres include E-Spheres. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the composition of BARONE by adding the hollow microspheres since addition of hollow microspheres into the coating composition enables to obtain a coating film having low thermal conductivity and high fire resistance, as evidenced from the disclosure of MENG (see MENG at paragraph [18]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of BARONE by including hollow microspheres with size up to 500 µm such as E-Spheres by Envirospheres having electrical resistance of 1015 ohm·cm, as disclosed by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties, in order to obtain the composition with low thermal conductivity and high fire resistance.
Regarding claim 5, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties teaches the fire-resistant composition of claim 21, wherein the intumescent is present in an amount of about 5 wt% to about 30 wt% based on a total weight of the fire-resistant composition (see BARONE at Col. 2, lines 59-61: the expandable graphite/intumescent is present in an amount of about 0.5 to about 10 wt% of the coating composition). BARONE teaches range of about 0.5 to about 10 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range. 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. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties teaches the fire-resistant composition of claim 1, wherein the binder is present in an amount of about 10 wt% to about 80 wt% based on a total weight of the fire-resistant composition (see BARONE at Col. 2, lines 61-63: binder is present in an amount of about 10 to about 30 wt% of the coating composition). BARONE teaches 10 to about 30 wt%, which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties teaches the fire-resistant composition of claim 21, wherein the blowing agent is selected from the group consisting of melamine, urea, dicyandiamide, and combinations thereof (see BARONE at Col. 6, lines 18-24: examples of blowing agent include melamine, dicyandiamide, urea… or a combination of at least one of the foregoing blowing agents).
Regarding claim 10, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties teaches the fire-resistant composition of claim 21, wherein the catalyst is selected form the group consisting of phosphoric acid, ammonium phosphates, and combinations thereof (see BARONE at Col. 5, lines 23-31: examples of intumescent catalysts include monoammonium phosphate, diammonium phosphate, ammonium polyphosphate, metaphosphoric acid, orthophosphoric acid…, or combinations of one or more of the foregoing intumescent catalysts).
Regarding claim 11, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties teaches the fire-resistant composition of claim 21, wherein:
the blowing agent is present in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 35 wt% based on a total weight of the fire-resistant composition (see BARONE at Col. 6, lines 25-28: the blowing agent is preferably used in an amount of about 0.1 to about 50 wt% based on the total weight of the coating composition), BARONE teaches range of about 0.1 to about 50 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range;
the catalyst is present in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 20 wt% based on the total weight of the fire-resistant composition (see BARONE at Col. 5, lines 46-49: catalyst is preferably used in an amount of about 1 to about 60 wt% based on the total weight of the coating composition), BARONE teaches range of about 1 to about 60 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range; or
a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 22, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties teaches the fire-resistant composition of claim 21, wherein the particles are spherical or substantially spherical (see FIR at paragraph 8, p. 7: the hollow microspheres).
Regarding claim 23, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties teaches the fire-resistant composition of claim 22, wherein the particles are hollow ceramic particles (see FIR at paragraph 8, p. 7: the hollow microspheres can be based on minerals (glass, ceramic)).
Regarding claim 25, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties teaches the fire-resistant composition of claim 21, wherein:
the thermoplastic compound (see BARONE at Col. 7, lines 14-15: the binder may be a thermoplastic polymer) selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl acetate, poly(methyl methacrylate), poly(ethyl acrylate) (see BARONE at Col. 7, lines 19-21: binders comprise polymers of vinyl acetate, methyl methacrylate, ethyl acrylate); and
the thermoset compound (see BARONE at Col. 7, lines 14-15: the binder may be a thermoplastic polymer, a thermosetting polymer or a combination of both) selected from the group consisting of polyacrylic latex resin (see BARONE at Col. 7, lines 24-25: examples of synthetic latex binders include acrylic latex).
Regarding claim 26, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties teaches the fire-resistant composition of claim 21, wherein the particles are hollow (see FIR at paragraph 8, p. 7: the hollow microspheres).
Regarding claims 27-28, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties teaches the fire-resistant composition of claims 21 and 23. While BARONE as modified by FIR is silent with respect to the fire-resistant composition having an electrical conductivity (wet) of about 32 milliSiemens or less, and an electrical resistivity (dry) of about 15 megaohms or more, or both, BARONE as modified by FIR discloses the composition comprising the same constituents as claimed. Thus, the properties such as an electrical conductivity (wet) of about 32 milliSiemens or less, and an electrical resistivity (dry) of about 15 megaohms or more are inherently disclosed. See MPEP §2112.01(I): “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best”.
Regarding claim 30, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties teaches the fire-resistant composition of claims 21, wherein the particles are glass or ceramic particles (see FIR at paragraph 8, p. 7: the hollow microspheres can be based on minerals (glass, ceramic)).
Regarding claim 31, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties teaches the fire-resistant composition of claims 30, wherein the particles are hollow (see FIR at paragraph 8, p. 7: the hollow microspheres).
Claims 4, 14, 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARONE in view of FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties as applied to claims 21 and 23 above, and further in view of Meng et al. (CN 112175461 A) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as MENG.
Regarding claim 4, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties teaches the fire-resistant composition of claim 21, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of particles is present in an amount of about 0.5 wt% to about 20 wt% based on a total weight of the fire-resistant composition.
However, MENG teaches an external wall thermal insulating intermediate coating, which has outstanding thermal insulation effect and good fire resistance (see MENG at paragraph [4]) comprising 5-10% of hollow beads (see MENG at paragraph [7]). Additionally, MENG teaches that the hollow microspheres are selected from ultralight ceramic sand, the thermal conductivity of the hollow microspheres is 0.03-0.04 W/(m·K), so that the coating film has the characteristics of low thermal conductivity and high fire resistance (see MENG at paragraph [18]).
According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire-resistant composition of BARONE by including 5-10% of the hollow microspheres as disclosed by MENG in order to obtain coating with low thermal conductivity and high fire resistance (see MENG at paragraph [18]).
The rationale for such modification would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (A)).
Regarding claim 14, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties teaches the fire-resistant composition of claim 21, wherein:
the intumescent is present in an amount of about 5 wt% to about 25 wt% based on a total weight of the fire-resistant composition (see BARONE at Col. 2, lines 59-61: the expandable graphite is present in an amount of about 0.5 to about 10 wt% of the coating composition). BARONE teaches range of about 0.5 to about 10 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range;
the binder is present in an amount of about 15 wt% to about 50 wt% based on a total weight of the fire-resistant composition (see BARONE at Col. 2, lines 61-63: binder is present in an amount of about 10 to about 30 wt% of the coating composition). BARONE teaches 10 to about 30 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range.
But BARONE as modified by FIR fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of particles is present in an amount of about 0.5 wt% to about 20 wt% based on a total weight of the fire-resistant composition.
However, MENG teaches an external wall thermal insulating intermediate coating, which has outstanding thermal insulation effect and good fire resistance (see MENG at paragraph [4]) comprising 5-10% of hollow beads (see MENG at paragraph [7]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when modifying the fire-resistant composition of BARONE by including 5-10% of the hollow microspheres as disclosed by MENG. The rationale and motivation to modify the composition of BARONE as modified by FIR was discussed in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 24, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties teaches the fire-resistant composition of claim 23, wherein:
the plurality of particles has an average particle size of about 0.5 µm to about 2000 µm (see FIR at paragraph 9, p. 7: maximum size is up to 500 µm),
the intumescent is present in an amount of about 5 wt% to about 30 wt% based on a total weight of the fire-resistant composition (see BARONE at Col. 2, lines 59-61: the expandable graphite is present in an amount of about 0.5 to about 10 wt% of the coating composition),
the binder is present in an amount of about 10 wt% to about 80 wt% based on a total weight of the fire-resistant composition (see BARONE at Col. 2, lines 61-63: binder is present in an amount of about 10 to about 30 wt% of the coating composition).
But BARONE as modified by FIR fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of particles is present in an amount of about 0.5 wt% to about 20 wt% based on a total weight of the fire-resistant composition.
However, MENG teaches an external wall thermal insulating intermediate coating, which has outstanding thermal insulation effect and good fire resistance (see MENG at paragraph [4]) comprising 5-10% of hollow beads (see MENG at paragraph [7]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when modifying the fire-resistant composition of BARONE by including 5-10% of the hollow microspheres as disclosed by MENG. The rationale and motivation to modify the composition of BARONE as modified by FIR was discussed in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 29, BARONE as modified by FIR, E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties and MENG teaches the fire-resistant composition of claim 24. While BARONE as modified by FIR and MENG is silent with respect to the fire-resistant composition having an electrical conductivity (wet) of about 32 milliSiemens or less, and an electrical resistivity (dry) of about 15 megaohms or more, or both, BARONE as modified by FIR and MENG discloses the composition comprising the same constituents as claimed. Thus, the properties such as an electrical conductivity (wet) of about 32 milliSiemens or less, and an electrical resistivity (dry) of about 15 megaohms or more are inherently disclosed. See MPEP §2112.01(I): “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best”.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARONE in view of FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 113174203 A) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as CHEN.
Regarding claim 12, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties teaches the fire-resistant composition of claim 21, but fails to explicitly teach a coalescing agent, a rheological modifier or a combination thereof.
However, CHEN teaches LBC nano thermal insulation and sound insulation fireproof coating that has excellent thermal insulation and fire prevention (see CHEN at paragraph [7]). CHEN also teaches composition comprising the film-forming aid/coalescing agent being 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol monoisobutyrate; and that by adopting the film-forming auxiliary agent, the disclosed composition has good compatibility with various raw materials in the paint, improves the film-forming property of the paint and helps to form a stable and uniform coating (see CHEN at paragraph [15]). CHEN also discloses polyurethane thickener/rheology modifier, and that by adopting the thickening agent the disclosed composition has compatibility with other raw materials, has good flow and leveling properties, uniform film formation and high thickening efficiency (see CHEN at paragraph [17]). Additionally, CHEN teaches a fireproof coating comprising 0.8 parts of film-foaming agent (0.7 wt%) and 0.6 part thickener (0.5 wt%) (see CHEN at paragraph [31]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the fire-resistant composition of BARONE as modified by FIR by adding 0.7 wt% of the film-forming aid/coalescing agent, e.g., 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol monoisobutyrate, and 0.5 wt% of polyurethane thickener disclosed by CHEN since CHEN explicitly teaches that by adopting the auxiliary agents, the composition has good compatibility with various raw materials, improves the film-forming property of the composition, helps to form a stable and uniform coating and has good flow and leveling properties (see CHEN at paragraphs [15] and [17]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire-resistant composition of BARONE as modified by FIR by adding 0.7 wt% of the film-forming aid/coalescing agent and 0.5 wt% of thickener/rheology modifier disclosed by CHEN in order to achieve good compatibility with various raw materials, improve the film-forming property of the composition and form a stable and uniform coating.
Regarding claim 13, BARONE as modified by FIR, E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties and CHEN teaches the fire-resistant composition of claim 12, wherein:
when the coalescing agent is present, an amount of the coalescing agent in the fire-resistant composition is from about 0.5 wt% to about 15 wt%, based on a total weight of the fire-resistant composition (see rejection of claim 12 above and CHEN at paragraph [31]: 0.8 parts of film-foaming agent (0.7 wt%)), CHEN teaches 0.7 wt%, which is within the claimed range;
when the rheological modifier is present, an amount of the rheological modifier in the fire-resistant composition is from about 0.25 wt% to about 10 wt%, based on the total weight of the fire-resistant composition (see rejection of claim 12 above and CHEN at paragraph [31]: 0.6 part thickener (0.5 wt%)), CHEN teaches 0.5 wt%, which is within the claimed range;
or a combination thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the references discloses the specific water-containing fire-resistant intumescent coating composition as claimed.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. As was discussed in the rejection of the amended claim 21 above, BARONE explicitly teaches a composition comprising binder which may be a combination of a thermoplastic polymer and a thermosetting polymer, and that a binder may be water-borne (see BARONE at Col. 7, lines 14-17). Thus, BARONE explicitly teaches dual-binder approach. In response to Applicant’s argument that BARONE’s example 1 includes only a single binder, it is noted that BARONE explicitly states that the provided examples are not to be construed as limiting the scope of the invention as these and other equivalent embodiments will be apparent in view of the disclosure (see BARONE at Col. 7, lines 52-54). Furthermore, MPEP §2123 states: “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)” and “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).”
Applicant argues that the Office has not provided a reasonable motivation to combine BARONE’s one-part, aqueous intumescent coating with FIR’s two-part, anhydrous adhesive/sealant system, nor has it shown a reasonable expectation of success for doing so (see Remarks received on 03/24/2026 spanning paragraphs on pages 9-10).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. As was discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, the use of hollow ceramic particles in the fire-resistant compositions is known in the art, as evidenced from the disclosure of MENG describing an external wall thermal insulating intermediate coating, which has outstanding thermal insulation effect and good fire resistance (see MENG at paragraph [4]) and comprises 5-10% of hollow beads (see MENG at paragraph [7]). Additionally, MENG teaches that the hollow microspheres are selected from ultralight ceramic sand, the thermal conductivity of the hollow microspheres is 0.03-0.04 W/(m·K), so that the coating film has the characteristics of low thermal conductivity and high fire resistance (see MENG at paragraph [18]). Similarly to BARONE, MENG discloses a coating composition comprising acrylic emulsion (see MENG at paragraph [9]). While FIR’s disclosure describes an anhydrous adhesive/sealant, FIR discloses adhesive/sealant made based on polysulfide or silicone and/or their derivatives, and including hollow mineral and/or organic microspheres and other fillers enabling achieving lower thermal conductivity of the material (see FIR at paragraph 3, p. 4). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of utilizing hollow microspheres having low thermal conductivity in the coating composition of BARONE based on the aforementioned disclosure of MENG. Furthermore, MENG and FIR address similar problem such as adding hollow microspheres into the composition to obtain the material with lower thermal conductivity. Since MENG is silent with respect to the specific type of hollow microsphere used, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when utilizing E-Spheres as disclosed by FIR, since FIR discloses E-Spheres of Envirospheres among the examples of suitable hollow microspheres that can be used to lower thermal conductivity of a material. Moreover, based on the disclosures of MENG and FIR describing that hollow microspheres can be successfully added to the aqueous system (see MENG at paragraph [9]) as well as to the non-aqueous system (see FIR at paragraph 3, p. 4), one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when moving a filler and formulation approach from non-aqueous adhesive/sealant into a water-containing intumescent coating.
In response to the Applicant argument that Office failed to establish that the prior art and the claimed invention are identical or substantially identical in structure and composition, and thus, that the previously presented inherency rationale applied to the rejection of claims 27-29 is unsupported (see Remarks received on 03/24/2026 spanning paragraphs on page 11).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. As was discussed in the rejection of claims above. BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties with evidence from MENG discloses a fire-resistant composition comprising the constituents as set forth in present claims. BARONE explicitly teaches a composition comprising an intumescent, a blowing agent, a catalyst, a water-borne binder including both thermoplastic and thermosetting polymers (see BARONE at Col. 2, lines 17-19, and Col. 7, lines 14-17). The rationale to combine BARONE and FIR describing use of E-Spheres having electrical resistance of 1015 ohm·cm was discussed above. Therefore, BARONE as modified by FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties discloses a composition substantially identical to the claimed composition.
Therefore, the rejection of claims as being unpatentable over BARONE in view of FIR and E-Spheres Typical Physical Properties with evidence from MENG is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
E-Spheres Technical Data discloses that E-SPHERES Hollow Ceramic Microspheres are widely utilized across different industries in the formulation of sealants, adhesives, filler compounds, putties and caulks.
E-Spheres Technical Data_2 discloses that E-SPHERES Hollow Ceramic Microspheres are widely utilized in the coating industry, to formulate coatings with enhanced thermal insulation capabilities.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights