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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakrout et al (US 2022/0259371) in view of (a) Gann et al (US 2014/0343183) and (b) Bertucelli et al (US 2017/0022704).
Lakrout teaches a multilayer composite (abstract) comprising a first foam layer comprising a polyurethane-based matrix component (abstract), and a flame retardant filler component (0061), and a second layer (herein understood to read on the claimed first barrier layer) comprising a material selected from the group consisting of non-woven glass fabric (0072) or other fibers described in the reference (0072) including silica fiber (0052). The fibers may be in the form of a fabric (0072).
Lakrout teaches the second material may comprise glass fiber, but does not teach the use of basalt fibers. However, Bertucelli teaches a fire resistant panel comprising a foam and a fire barrier layer comprising glass fibers as a structural integrity barrier material (0045). Bertucelli teaches basalt fibers may be used as a functional equivalent to the glass fibers. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize basalt fibers in place of the glass fibers disclosed in Lakrout because Bertucelli teaches said materials are functional equivalence in foam base fire barriers.
Lakrout also does not teach the foam composition should have a HBF flammability rating as measured according to ASTM D4986. However, Gann teaches a highly flame retardant and thermally stable polyurethane foam composition (abstract) and a flame retardant filler (see claims). Gann further teaches said foam has a HBF flammability rating as measured using ASTM D4986 (Table 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the polyurethane foam of Gann in place of the polyurethane foam taught in Lakrout; the motivation for doing so would have been to improve the flame and fire resistance of the composite.
With regards to claim 2, Gann teaches the polyurethane-based matrix component comprises a flexible polyurethane (0036) reacted from isocyanate and polyol (0157).
With regards to claim 3, Gann teaches the foam may comprise expanded graphite or phosphorous compounds (see claim 11).
With regards to claim 4, Gann teaches the first foam layer comprises a polyurethane-based matrix component content of at least about 40 wt.% and not greater than about 95 wt.% for a total weight of the first foam layer (see claims 10 and 11).
With regards to claim 5, Gann teaches the first foam layer comprises a flame retardant filler component content of at least about 5 wt.% and not greater than about 60 wt.% for a total weight of the first foam layer (see claims 10 and 11).
With regards to claim 6, Gann teaches the first foam layer comprises a HBF flammability rating as measured according to ASTM D4986 (see Table 6).
With regards to claim 7, it is known in the art that the heat barrier properties of a composite is increases with thickness. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the thickness of the foam in order to achieve the desired barrier properties, including obtaining a cold side temperature of not greater than about 300 °C as measured at 5 minutes when exposed to a hotplate test at 650 °C.
With regards to claim 8, Lakrout teaches the thickness of the foam may have a thickness of 0.125-1 inch (102)-herein understood to read on the claimed “at least about 0.5 mm and not greater than about 10 mm.”
With regards to claim 9, Lakrout teaches thickness of the composite is less than 2inches (claim 59-herein understood to read on the claimed “thickness of at least about 0.5 mm and not greater than about 10 mm.”
With regards to claim 11, Lakrout teaches the first barrier layer has a thickness of 0.01-0.05 inches (0074)-herein understood to read on the claimed thickness of “0.05 mm and not greater than about 7 mm.”
With regards to claim 12, Lakrout teaches the multilayer composite may further comprises a second barrier layer and wherein the first foam layer is between the first barrier layer and the second barrier layer (0071).
With regards to claim 13, Lakrout does not teach the multilayer composite may further comprises a second foam layer and a second barrier layer, wherein the second for a layer comprises a polyurethane-based matrix component and a flame retardant filler component, and wherein the first foam layer and the second foam layer are both between the first barrier layer and the second barrier layer. However, the courts have held that he mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
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 KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on (571) 272-1123. 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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787